Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gelbman v. Gelbmangreen2 sentences2000General Principles In Gelbman v Gelbman ( 23 NY2d 434, 439 [1969]), the Court of Appeals “abolish [ed] the defense of intrafamily tort immunity for nonwillful torts.” Just five years later, in Holodook v Spencer ( 36 NY2d 35 [1974]), that Court recognized an exception to its abrogation of that immunity rule. 1985In 1969, the Court of Appeals abolished the defense of intrafamily tort immunity for nonwillful torts (Gelbman v Gelbman, 23 NY2d 434, 439 ). | 1 | 4 |
LaTorre v. Genesee Management, Inc.green1 sentence2000Specifically, it held that “[a] parent’s negligent failure to supervise a child” will generally “not * * * constitute a tort actionable by the child” (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., 90 NY2d 576, 579 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holodook v. Spencer
green
2 sentences2000General Principles In Gelbman v Gelbman ( 23 NY2d 434, 439 [1969]), the Court of Appeals “abolish [ed] the defense of intrafamily tort immunity for nonwillful torts.” Just five years later, in Holodook v Spencer ( 36 NY2d 35 [1974]), that Court recognized an exception to its abrogation of that immunity rule. 1980An exception to this broad rule which abolished the defense of intrafamily tort immunity for nonwillful torts exists in those situations where the parental act constitutes negligent supervision, in which case no cause of action on behalf of the child will lie (Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 50-51 ; Goedkoop v Ward Pavement Corp., 51 AD2d 542 ). | 4 | 1980–2000 |
Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp.
green
1 sentence1980An exception to this broad rule which abolished the defense of intrafamily tort immunity for nonwillful torts exists in those situations where the parental act constitutes negligent supervision, in which case no cause of action on behalf of the child will lie (Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 50-51 ; Goedkoop v Ward Pavement Corp., 51 AD2d 542 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Sorrentino v. United States
green
1 sentence1973In Sorrentino v. United States ( 344 F. Supp. 1308 ), Dole was combined with Gelbman v. Gelbman (23 N Y 2d 434), which had abolished the defense of intrafamily tort immunity for nonwillful torts, to permit the defendant owner of a vehicle which had struck an infant bicyclist to assert a counterclaim and third-party complaint against the infant’s parents for negligent supervision. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Denault v. Denault
neutral
1 sentence1970(See Denault v. Denault, 220 So. 2d 27 [Fla.], supra; Badigian v. Badigian, 9 N Y 2d 472, supra.) In rejecting the conclusion that intrafamily litigation would necessarily undermine parental authority and disrupt the peace ofi the family, and thus contravene public policy, the court in Gelbman said (23 N Y 2d 434, 439, supra): “ By abolishing the defense of intrafamily tort immunity for nonwillful torts, we are not creating liability where none previously existed. | 1 | 1970–1970 |