Fernandez v. Stepping Stone Day School, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Goldstein v. Welter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Cesar Ivan A. v. Lolita Child Day Care (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cesar Ivan A. v. Lolita Child Day Care (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Atehortua v. Lewin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Allstate Insurance v. Leach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated March 21, 2001, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order as permitted the defendant to move for summary judgment more than 120 days after the filing of the plaintiffs’ note of issue.
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the cross appellants are not aggrieved by the order cross-appealed from (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Although the defendant is not an insurer of the children entrusted to its care, it is under a duty to adequately supervise such children, and it can be held liable
The plaintiffs’ cross appeal must be dismissed because they are not aggrieved by the order cross-appealed from. However, on the defendant’s appeal the plaintiffs may raise, as an alternative ground for affirmance, the argument that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant leave to move for summary judgment more than 120 days after the filing of the plaintiffs’ note of issue (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539). Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.