Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the third-party complaint is reinstated.
The court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint asserted against the infant plaintiff's parents. The basis of the allegation of liability was not negligent supervision of their child (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35), but rather negligent supervision and control over the guests on their premises, some of whom were underage and drinking beer provided by the son of the third-party defendants. "`[A] child * * * has a viable cause of action against its parent[s] based on the parent[s'] negligent act which breaches a duty owed to the world at large'" (Grivas v Grivas, 113 A.D.2d 264, 266, quoting from Hurst v Titus, 77 A.D.2d 157, 158); here, the duty owed is that of supervising and controlling infant guests (cf. Huyler v Rose, 88 A.D.2d 755). Thus, a third-party cause of action for contribution has been sufficiently stated to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.