Case Name: Annmarie Leek, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Frances Leek, et al., Respondents, v. Doreen McGlone, Respondent, and Kendall Leek, Appellant. (Action No. 1.); Doreen McGlone et al., Plaintiffs, v. Annmarie Leek, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Frances Leek, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1988-05-09
Citations: 140 A.D.2d 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: Annmarie Leek, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Frances Leek, et al., Respondents, v Doreen McGlone, Respondent, and Kendall Leek, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Doreen McGlone et al., Plaintiffs, v Annmarie Leek, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Frances Leek, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
Annmarie Leek, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Frances Leek, et al., Respondents, v Doreen McGlone, Respondent, and Kendall Leek, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Doreen McGlone et al., Plaintiffs, v Annmarie Leek, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Frances Leek, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

Opinion:
While we agree with the defendant Kendall Leek that the allegations contained in the original complaint sounded exclusively in negligent supervision and negligent entrustment, and as such, failed to state a cause of action upon which his injured daughter could recover against him (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332; Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35), the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, did not abuse its discretion in permitting the amendment of the complaint under the circumstances presented (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755).
Moreover, although the amended complaint contains numerous similarly nonactionable allegations regarding negligent supervision and entrustment, we find that a viable cause of action is stated solely by the allegation that the injuries were caused by Kendall Leek's negligence in providing a minibike with defective brakes to his injured daughter. Only this alie gation premises liability upon an alleged breach of duty to the world-at-large based on the defective nature of the minibike itself rather than upon the breach of a duty which arises solely from the familial relationship of the parties (see, Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264; Lynch v Lynch, 88 AD2d 972; Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157). Accordingly, denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint and cross claim in action No. 1 was warranted for this reason (see generally, Semmens v Hopper, 128 AD2d 767; Fowler v Attenborough, 124 AD2d 780). Weinstein, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.