DeRosa v. Smith, 286 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
DeRosa v. Smith, 286 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Damphier v. Brasmeister
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly dismissed the negligent supervision claim insofar as asserted against the Phelpses ( see Rivers v Murray , 29 AD3d 884, 884-885 [2006]; DiCarlo v City of New York , 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]; Armour v England , 210 AD2d 561, 561-562 [1994]; Brahm v Hatch , 203 AD2d at 641-642 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) L.D. Wenger Construction Co. v. UnBuildIt, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Since UnBuildlt and Fraser advance no argument in their brief regarding their appeal from the order dated December 3, 2008, we must dismiss the appeal from that order as abandoned (see Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v DeBellis, 72 AD3d 164 [2010]; Cambry v Lincoln Gardens, 50 AD3d 1081, 1084 [2008]; Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739 [2008]; DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chu v. Pan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Since 1st Class raises no argument in its briefs regarding its appeal from the order dated February 19, 2009, we must dismiss its appeal from that order as abandoned (see Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v DeBellis, 72 AD3d 164, 180-181 [2010]; Cambry v Lincoln Gardens, 50 AD3d 1081, 1084 [2008]; Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739 [2008]; DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellner v. Schwed
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Since the plaintiffs’ brief failed to set forth any argument regarding their appeal from the order dated January 24, 2007, denying their motion to vacate the note of issue, we must dismiss that appeal as abandoned (see generally Gagnon v Hamlet on Olde Oyster Bay, LLC, 35 AD3d 655 [2006]; DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]; Alfred Weissman Real Estate v Big V Supermarkets, 268 AD2d 101, 106 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gagnon v. Hamlet on Olde Oyster Bay, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the appellants specifically state in their brief that as to each of the three judgments appealed from, the appellants appeal only as to Newbridge, and the judgments entered November 22, 2004, and December 15, 2004, do not contain any decretal paragraphs in favor of Newbridge and against the appellants, we dismiss the appeals from those judgments as abandoned (see Matter of Nasheem P., 23 AD3d 662, 664 [2005]; DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Palmieri v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Residential Healthcare Facility, Inc. v Novello, 24 AD3d 1069 , 1071 n 1 [2005]; DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]; Matter of Calm Lake Dev. v Town Bd. of Town of Farmington, 213 AD2d 979 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rivers v. Murray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
In particular, evidence of a single prior incident in which Andrew had pushed his father did not establish a propensity on the part of the child to commit vicious acts (see DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ogletree v. Rush Realty Associates, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]; see Liang v Rosedale Group Home, supra at 655-656; DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Nasheem P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Because the appellant’s brief failed to set forth any arguments that the orders dated July 7, 2004, and November 5, 2004, were erroneous, we deem those appeals abandoned (see DiCarlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 365 [2001]; Alfred Weissman Real Estate v Big V Supermarkets, 268 AD2d 101, 106 [2000]; Transamerica Commercial Fin.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howard v. Parsons' Child & Family Center
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
We acknowledge that a child care agency acting in loco parentis with regard to a foster child may be under a duty to control the child’s behavior to prevent harm to others (see Di-Carlo v City of New York, 286 AD2d 363, 364-365 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Denise DeRosa
v.
Russell Smith, and Phyllis Smith
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 13, 2001.
286 A.D.2d 363
Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated May 4, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Phyllis Smith.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The respondent demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Generally, a parent is not liable for the torts of his or her child (see, Steinberg v Cauchois, 249 App Div 518). While a parent may be held liable where he or she “participates in the child’s tortious act by consenting to it or by ratifying it later and accepting the fruits” (Steinberg v Cauchois, supra, at 519; see, Pico v Canini, 47 AD2d 951), there was no evidence that the respondent engaged in such conduct. Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion, the respondent’s offer to pay the dental expenses incurred by the injured infant did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she consented to or ratified her child’s allegedly tortious act. Accordingly, the respondent was entitled to summary judgment. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.