Sutfin v. Scheuer
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Yount Ex Rel. Monett v. Johnson (N.M. Ct. App. 1996)
- Hankey v. Ogdensburg City Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Cohen v. Sterling Mets, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Godwin v. Russi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Roberts v. Boys & Girls Republic, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Procopio v. Town of Saugerties (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Sutton v. Eastern New York Youth Soccer Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Kreil v. County of Niagara (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Blount v. Town of West Turin (New York Supreme Court 2003)
- Bierach v. Nichols (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Yule v. Town of Huntington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Rubenstein v. Woodstock Riding Club, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Lamey v. Foley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Kelly v. Great Neck Union Free School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Osborne v. Olean Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Morales v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Marlowe v. Rush-Henrietta Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Defendants, a 14-year-old boy and a 15-year-old boy, were playing hardball catch at a distance of 25 feet on a city street. According to plaintiff, also 15 and an experienced baseball player, he approached defendants, both his friends, during their game, greeted them and conversed with each of them as they continued throwing the ball back and forth. Plaintiff then moved a short distance behind defendant Bauer and began talking with two or three other friends. Thereafter, Bauer threw a ball that eluded defendant Scheuer who retrieved the ball and, from a distance of 75 feet, made an errant throw that struck plaintiff in the mouth and injured him.
By placing himself in the line of an ongoing game of catch between his friends, plaintiff put himself in danger of being struck by a misthrown ball. Thus, the Appellate Division properly held that in the circumstances plaintiff was owed no duty by defendants.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.