Cappadora v. Orange-Ulster BOCES

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cappadora v. Orange-Ulster BOCES

72 A.D.3d 862, 898 N.Y.S.2d 863

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 862 (Cappadora v. Orange-Ulster BOCES) 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

Cappadora v. Orange-Ulster BOCES, 72 A.D.3d 862, 898 N.Y.S.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated April 3, 2009, which granted the separate motions of the defendant Orange-Ulster BOCES, and the defendant Joint Recreation Commission of the Town and Village of Goshen, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their separate motions for summary judgment, the defendants Orange-Ulster BOCES and Joint Recreation Commission of the Town and Village of Goshen made prima facie showings of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that, pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, they owed no duty to the plaintiff (see Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 274-275 [1985]; Lombardo v Cedar Brook Golf & Tennis Club, Inc., 39 AD3d 818, 819 [2007]; Joseph v New York Racing Assn., 28 AD3d 105, 108-109 [2006]; Barboto v Hollow Hills Country Club, 14 AD3d 522 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated April 3, 2009, which granted the separate motions of the defendant Orange-Ulster BOCES, and the defendant Joint Recreation Commission of the Town and Village of Goshen, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their separate motions for summary judgment, the defendants Orange-Ulster BOCES and Joint Recreation Commission of the Town and Village of Goshen made prima facie showings of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that, pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, they owed no duty to the plaintiff (see Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 274-275 [1985]; Lombardo v Cedar Brook Golf & Tennis Club, Inc., 39 AD3d 818, 819 [2007]; Joseph v New York Racing Assn., 28 AD3d 105, 108-109 [2006]; Barboto v Hollow Hills Country Club, 14 AD3d 522 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 862, 898 N.Y.S.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappadora-v-orange-ulster-boces-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack