plaintiffs further claim in New York

2010Under Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26, a court may reserve “for later resolution” an issue that might otherwise have been adjudicated in the initial proceeding (see Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v Hunt Truck Lines, Inc., 296 F3d 624, 629 [2002]; Apparel Art Intl., Inc. v Amertex Enters.

2006Although the plaintiffs further claim that negligent supervision on the part of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff, where, as here, an accident occurs in so short a span of time that “ ‘even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it,’ lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury” (see Janukajtis v Fallon, 284 AD2d 428, 430 [2001]).

2005The plaintiffs further challenge the constitutionality of Port Jervis City Code § 69-12, which authorizes the City to assess against the land on which a dangerous building is located “[a]ll expenses incurred by the city in connection with the proceedings to . . . demolish and remove the unsafe building . . . including the cost of actually removing such building or correcting such condition or nuisance.” This challenge is equally unavailing, as local government “may summarily abate nuisances ... in appropriate circumstances and compel property owners to bear the cost of abatement without prior

1986Thus, plaintiffs claim that even when State legislation does not preempt a field of regulation, a local law that is inconsistent with a general State law may be invalidated (Consolidated Edison Co. v Town of Red Hook, supra, at p 107).