Ripton v. Gracie, 266 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · Go Syfert
Ripton v. Gracie, 266 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rios v. Smith (ny, 2001-02-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rios v. Smith
NY · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
As the Court stated in *653 Nolechek and echoed in LaTorre , a parent owes a duty to protect third parties from harm that is clearly foreseeable from the child’s improvident use or operation of a dangerous instrument, where such use is found to be subject to the parent’s control (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, supra, 46 NY2d, at 340 ; LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 584 ; see also, Ripton v Grade, 266 AD2d 885 ; Paladino v Isasi, 123 AD2d 379 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cathy A. Ripton, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Shane M. Russell, an Infant
v.
Jane Gracie
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 12, 1999.
266 A.D.2d 885
1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11875
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motions of defendants Jane Gracie and Beverly Dries for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Plaintiff Cathy A. Ripton’s 14-year-old son was injured while operating a moped owned by Dries that collided with a motor vehicle driven by Gracie. With respect to Dries, the complaint alleges the negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument. Dries failed to establish as a matter of law that the moped is not a dangerous instrument (see, Alessi v Alessi, 103 AD2d 1023, 1023-1024), and there is a further issue of fact whether she was, or should have been, aware of its use by her children’s friends (see, Paladino v Isasi, 123 AD2d 379, 381). With respect to Gracie, the complaint alleges the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and there is a triable issue of fact whether the emergency doctrine applies (see, Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327, rearg denied 77 NY2d 990). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Dillon, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Scudder, JJ.