From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramesar v. Surooj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied the defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer to assert three counterclaims against the plaintiff-father for contribution and/or indemnification. The defendants' proposed amended answer failed to allege "the type of affirmative conduct needed by a parent to remove this case from the general rule that mere negligent supervision of a child is not actionable" (Navaro v Ieraci, 214 A.D.2d 713, 714). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ramesar v. Surooj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Ramesar v. Surooj

Case Details

Full title:THAMEERA RAMESAR et al., Respondents, v. KOWSILLA SUROOJ et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 27, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 492

Citing Cases

Cooper v. RENSSELAER COUNTY

For example, the record reveals that the parents failed to obtain any prenatal or routine pediatric care for…

Cooper v. Rensselaer County

To the extent there are periods of lead exposure for which defendants are not responsible, the parents'…