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.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nolechek v. Gesualegreen2 sentences1983In opposition to the motion to dismiss, defendant stressed the exception to the Holodook rule which was enunciated in Nolechek ( 46 NY2d, at p 341 ) as follows: “Of course, in the particular contexts presented in the Holodook case, considerations of intrafamily relations were given greater prominence (see Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 46-49 , supra). 1983In opposition to the motion to dismiss, defendant stressed the exception to the Holodook rule which was enunciated in Nolechek ( 46 NY2d, at p 341 ) as follows: “Of course, in the particular contexts presented in the Holodook case, considerations of intrafamily relations were given greater prominence (see Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 46-49 , supra). | 1 | 3 |
Smith v. Sapienzagreen2 sentences2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. 2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Sapienzagreen2 sentences2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. 2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2000Auth., 250 AD2d 719, 720 [2d Dept 1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 1045 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999] [defendant could not seek contribution from parent whose child was burned when her leg was caught between two exposed steam pipes in her bedroom]). 2000Auth., 250 AD2d 719, 720 [2d Dept 1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 1045 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999] [defendant could not seek contribution from parent whose child was burned when her leg was caught between two exposed steam pipes in her bedroom]). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Davisgreen2 sentences1993However, whether an individual is acting in loco parentis is generally a question of fact and is not to be lightly inferred (see, Rutkowski v Wasko, 286 App Div 327, 331 ; see also, Miller v Davis, 49 Misc 2d 764 ). 1993However, whether an individual is acting in loco parentis is generally a question of fact and is not to be lightly inferred (see, Rutkowski v Wasko, 286 App Div 327, 331 ; see also, Miller v Davis, 49 Misc 2d 764 ). | 1 | 1 |
Seeberger v. Le Garegreen2 sentences1978But deciding when to permit a minor to Use a "dangerous instrument”, whether it be a motorcycle, a bow and arrow, a knife, a hammer, or even a pencil, is as much an element of parental supervision as is the decision to monitor a child’s play activity more or less closely (compare id., pp 41-42; see, also, Seeberger v Le Gare, 48 AD2d 994, 995 ). 1978But deciding when to permit a minor to Use a "dangerous instrument”, whether it be a motorcycle, a bow and arrow, a knife, a hammer, or even a pencil, is as much an element of parental supervision as is the decision to monitor a child’s play activity more or less closely (compare id., pp 41-42; see, also, Seeberger v Le Gare, 48 AD2d 994, 995 ). | 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 sentences1983In opposition to the motion to dismiss, defendant stressed the exception to the Holodook rule which was enunciated in Nolechek ( 46 NY2d, at p 341 ) as follows: “Of course, in the particular contexts presented in the Holodook case, considerations of intrafamily relations were given greater prominence (see Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 46-49 , supra). 1983In opposition to the motion to dismiss, defendant stressed the exception to the Holodook rule which was enunciated in Nolechek ( 46 NY2d, at p 341 ) as follows: “Of course, in the particular contexts presented in the Holodook case, considerations of intrafamily relations were given greater prominence (see Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35, 46-49 , supra). | 3 | 1983–2000 |
LaTorre v. Genesee Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. 2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wallace v. Pacelli
green
2 sentences2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. 2000Such a result is wholly inconsistent with the acknowledged purpose of the Holodook rule (see, LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., supra, 90 NY2d, at 580-581 ), and is rejected by this court, as it has been by others (see, Wallace v Pacelli, 221 AD2d 778 , supra [child injured playing in street]; see also, Smith v Sapienza, 73 AD2d 224 [2d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 82 [1981] [child bitten by neighbor’s dog]; Brown v New York City Hous. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sternfeld v. Forcier
neutral
2 sentences2000Auth., 250 AD2d 719, 720 [2d Dept 1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 1045 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999] [defendant could not seek contribution from parent whose child was burned when her leg was caught between two exposed steam pipes in her bedroom]). 2000Auth., 250 AD2d 719, 720 [2d Dept 1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 1045 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999] [defendant could not seek contribution from parent whose child was burned when her leg was caught between two exposed steam pipes in her bedroom]). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Rutkowski v. Wasko
green
2 sentences1993However, whether an individual is acting in loco parentis is generally a question of fact and is not to be lightly inferred (see, Rutkowski v Wasko, 286 App Div 327, 331 ; see also, Miller v Davis, 49 Misc 2d 764 ). 1993However, whether an individual is acting in loco parentis is generally a question of fact and is not to be lightly inferred (see, Rutkowski v Wasko, 286 App Div 327, 331 ; see also, Miller v Davis, 49 Misc 2d 764 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gelbman v. Gelbman
green
2 sentences1983However, Holodook (supra) only carved out an exception to Gelbman v Gelbman ( 23 NY2d 434 , supra). 1983However, Holodook (supra) only carved out an exception to Gelbman v Gelbman ( 23 NY2d 434 , supra). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Goller v. White
green
2 sentences1978And, though every one of our sister States that have considered the problem has rejected the Holodook rule (e.g., Gibson v Gibson, 3 Cal 3d 914; Goller v White, 20 Wis 2d 402 ; Silesky v Kelman, 281 Minn 431), though the critical analysis in Judge Jasen’s dissenting opinion in Holodook is supported by eminent scholarly authority (see McCurdy, Torts Between Persons in Domestic Relation, 43 Harv L Rev 1030, 1078-1080; Thuillez, Parental Nonsupervision: The Tort that Never Was, 40 Albany L Rev 336; Casenote, 42 Brooklyn L Rev 125; Note, 47 U Col L Rev 795), and though the majority of the court to 1978And, though every one of our sister States that have considered the problem has rejected the Holodook rule (e.g., Gibson v Gibson, 3 Cal 3d 914; Goller v White, 20 Wis 2d 402 ; Silesky v Kelman, 281 Minn 431), though the critical analysis in Judge Jasen’s dissenting opinion in Holodook is supported by eminent scholarly authority (see McCurdy, Torts Between Persons in Domestic Relation, 43 Harv L Rev 1030, 1078-1080; Thuillez, Parental Nonsupervision: The Tort that Never Was, 40 Albany L Rev 336; Casenote, 42 Brooklyn L Rev 125; Note, 47 U Col L Rev 795), and though the majority of the court to | 1 | 1978–1978 |