Cassese v. Ramapo Ice Rinks, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cassese v. Ramapo Ice Rinks, Inc.

208 A.D.2d 488, 616 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9319

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 3, 1994·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for negligence, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated January 5, 1993, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury which he sustained upon voluntarily participating in a league hockey game at the defendant’s rink (see, e.g., Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277-278; Ferraro v Town of Huntington, 202 AD2d 468). Additionally, we note that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant breached any duty of care in connection with the inci[489] dent which caused his injury, or, in any event, that his injury was proximately caused by any act or omission of the defendant (cf., Kelly v Great Neck Union Free School Dist., 192 AD2d 696, 697). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Gold-stein, 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 negligence, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated January 5, 1993, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury which he sustained upon voluntarily participating in a league hockey game at the defendant’s rink (see, e.g., Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277-278; Ferraro v Town of Huntington, 202 AD2d 468). Additionally, we note that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant breached any duty of care in connection with the inci[489] dent which caused his injury, or, in any event, that his injury was proximately caused by any act or omission of the defendant (cf., Kelly v Great Neck Union Free School Dist., 192 AD2d 696, 697). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cassese v. Ramapo Ice Rinks, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 488, 616 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

208 A.D.2d 488 (Cassese v. Ramapo Ice Rinks, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related