Benolol v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benolol v. City of New York

94 A.D.3d 414, 941 N.Y.S.2d 489

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

DecidedApril 3, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 414 (Benolol v. City of New York) 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

Benolol v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 414, 941 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York [415]*415County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 10, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff was injured while playing soccer when he tripped over an uneven portion of the artificial turf field. Plaintiff testified that prior to his fall, he had not noticed the allegedly defective condition over which he fell.

While “the doctrine of assumption of the risk does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises” (Sykes v County of Erie, 94 NY2d 912, 913 [2000]), here defendants established as a matter of law that the uneven condition of the artificial turf was open and obvious, and was not the result of their negligence in maintaining the field (see Ashbourne v City of New York, 82 AD3d 461, 463 [2011]; Simmons v Saugerties Cent. School Dist., 82 AD3d 1407, 1409-1410 [2011]; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270 [1985]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York [415]*415County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 10, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff was injured while playing soccer when he tripped over an uneven portion of the artificial turf field. Plaintiff testified that prior to his fall, he had not noticed the allegedly defective condition over which he fell.

While “the doctrine of assumption of the risk does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises” (Sykes v County of Erie, 94 NY2d 912, 913 [2000]), here defendants established as a matter of law that the uneven condition of the artificial turf was open and obvious, and was not the result of their negligence in maintaining the field (see Ashbourne v City of New York, 82 AD3d 461, 463 [2011]; Simmons v Saugerties Cent. School Dist., 82 AD3d 1407, 1409-1410 [2011]; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270 [1985]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 414, 941 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benolol-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack