Legal Opinion
Soomaroo v. Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 5, 2007PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 27, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A plaintiff’s actions which are extraordinary and unforeseeable will be deemed a superseding cause which severs the causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries (see Kriz v Schum, 75 NY2d 25, 36 [1989]; Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Kriz v. SchumNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Humbach v. GoldsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Gilbert v. Kingsbrook Jewish CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lapidus v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Nye v. Putnam Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Mazzio v. Highland Homeowners Ass'n & CondosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Dorval v. Terrace 100, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Dorval v. Terrace 100, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014