Legal Opinion · Dissent

Clementoni v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 9, 2006Published

1Dissent

Gorski and Green, JJ. (dissenting).

We respectfully dissent. It is the position of the majority that the respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims should have been granted on the ground that Raymond and Gertrude Skowron and defendants Harold M. Gardner and Patricia Gardner owed no duty of care to plaintiff as a matter of law. In our view, however, the unusual circumstances of this case support the conclusion that decedents and the Gardners owed a duty of care to plaintiff. With respect to decedents, we note that they owned and maintained the private road…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Galindo v. Town of ClarkstownNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. Hayes v. MalkanNew York Court of Appeals · 1970
  3. Barnes v. Stone-QuinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  4. Echorst v. KaimAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  5. Gayden v. City of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API