Beck v. Scimeca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beck v. Scimeca

229 A.D.2d 555, 646 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8319

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 555 (Beck v. Scimeca) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beck v. Scimeca, 229 A.D.2d 555, 646 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered September 26, 1995, which, upon an order of the same court entered August 24, 1995, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the order entered August 24, 1995, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The proof submitted on the motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the plaintiff Robert Beck voluntarily assumed the risk of the martial arts activity in which he was participating (see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432; Chimerine v World Champion John Chung Tae Kwon Do Inst., 225 AD2d 323; Rubenstein v Woodstock Riding Club, 208 AD2d 1160; Cardoza v Village of Freeport, 205 AD2d 571). Therefore, based on [556]*556the circumstances of this case, summary judgment was properly granted. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered September 26, 1995, which, upon an order of the same court entered August 24, 1995, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the order entered August 24, 1995, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The proof submitted on the motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the plaintiff Robert Beck voluntarily assumed the risk of the martial arts activity in which he was participating (see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432; Chimerine v World Champion John Chung Tae Kwon Do Inst., 225 AD2d 323; Rubenstein v Woodstock Riding Club, 208 AD2d 1160; Cardoza v Village of Freeport, 205 AD2d 571). Therefore, based on [556]*556the circumstances of this case, summary judgment was properly granted. Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 555, 646 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-scimeca-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack