Martinez v. Lazaroff

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 48 N.Y.2d 819, 424 N.Y.S.2d 126, 399 N.E.2d 1148, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2462

Decision Date: 11/20/1979

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Martinez v. Lazaroff, 48 N.Y.2d 819, 424 N.Y.S.2d 126, 399 N.E.2d 1148, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2462 (1979)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1979

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 59 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.47

N.Y.4

E.D.N.Y.2

Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2

2d Cir.1

Cal. Ct. App.1

Most recently cited by10

2016Hain v. Jamison N.Y.
2015Andrade v. Zamora N.Y. App. Div.
2015Dia v. Fieldbridge Associates LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2015World Trade Center Properties LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. 2d Cir.
2011Horn v. Hires N.Y. App. Div.
2008Hoang v. Man Chong Wong N.Y. App. Div.
2007Nassimi v. Petrikovsky N.Y. App. Div.
2006Carson v. Dudley N.Y. App. Div.
2005Villegas-Munoz v. Calogero N.Y. App. Div.
2003Siso v. Tawil N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 2 cases

Pagan v. Goldberger
Rivera v. City of New York

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Harold Martinez, an Infant by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Blanca Martinez, et al., Appellants, v Murray Lazaroff et al., Respondents.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Herman B. Glaser and Helen B. Stoller for appellants.
James M. O’Brien for respondents.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree that, as a matter of law, the failure of defendants to supply their tenants with hot water was not the proximate or legal cause of the injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff (Rivera v City of New York, 11 NY2d 856; cf. Pagan v Goldberger, 51 AD2d 508; see Prosser, Torts [4th ed], § 42, p 244). In this instance it was not the failure to supply hot water which was the direct cause of the injuries; the causal connection between the two was attenuated. The failure to furnish hot water gave rise to intervention on the part of the infant’s father to provide a substitute supply of hot water. But that action was not the direct cause of the injuries either. The injuries occurred when the father was transporting a pot of boiling water from the substitute source and the infant plaintiff came out of the bedroom and bumped into him. The intervention of the father brought about injuries to his son which were entirely different in character from any that would have resulted from the failure to supply hot water alone, and those injuries cannot be classified as normally to have been expected to ensue from the landlord’s dereliction.