Schetzen v. Robotsis
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sawyer v. Wight (District Court, E.D. New York 2002)
- Panella v. United States Dept. of Homeland Security (District Court, W.D. New York 2025)
- Adirondack Insurance Exchange v. Banagos (District Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Borrerro v. Haks Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- McDonald v. Riccuiti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Peralta-Mera v. Streep (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Joseph v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2024)
- Rinaldi v. Wakmal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Tong v. Target, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Nicholson v. Freeport Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Hernandez v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Doe v. Jacobs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Allstate Insurance v. Schimmel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Goetz-Haddad v. Pathmark Supermarkets (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Cannon v. Boniello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 25, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Christopher Thurau for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and (2) an order of the same court, dated September 1, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Charles Robot-sis and Michael Sulin for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs’ cause of action, which was couched in terms of negligence, was properly treated as a cause of action to recover damages for an assault. The plaintiffs alleged solely that the defendants “negligently held” or “negligently struck” their minor plaintiff son. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that their cause of action was not one alleging intentional tort. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, if, based on a reading of the factual
The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Joy, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.