You are here: / / CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF...
,

CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department determined the last occupant of a campsite (Reinoso), as well as the county which owned the campgrounds, were not entitled to summary judgment in and action brought by an eight-year-old boy who was burned when he stepped into a pit of hot coals:

​

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Reinoso was the party who left the hot embers on the ground … .

Further, it has long been the rule in New York that “[l]andowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property” … . “In particular, they have a duty to control the conduct of third persons on their premises when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control”… . Here, the evidence submitted by the County defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether they exercised “ordinary and reasonable care in maintaining the campgrounds in a reasonably safe condition so as to prevent foreseeable injury” … . Holohan v County of Suffolk, 2017 NY Slip Op 04104, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY-OWNED CAMPGROUNDS, CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CAMPGROUNDS (CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

You might also like
WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE CPLR 3215 REQUIREMENT THAT PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE COMMENCED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DEFAULT APPLIES TO COUNTERCLAIMS; COUNTERCLAIM DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
Procedure for Determining a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss a Declaratory Judgment Action Explained
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Can Not Be Deemed Dismissed in Absence of Final Judgment
THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES FOR NONCITIZENS; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE HER GUILTY PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JUDGE THAT DEFENDANT SAID SHE WAS A CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY, DEFENDANT CROSSED DOUBLE... ABSENCE OF A COMMA, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DICTATE THE MEANING OF...