Chaikin v. Long Island City YMCA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chaikin v. Long Island City YMCA

29 A.D.3d 619, 814 N.Y.S.2d 733

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

DecidedMay 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 619 (Chaikin v. Long Island City YMCA) 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

Chaikin v. Long Island City YMCA, 29 A.D.3d 619, 814 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated January 12, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was playing the position of catcher without a face mask in a softball game in the defendant’s league when a batter swung at a pitch and hit him in the face with the bat. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant asserting that it supervised the game and owed him a duty to provide safety equipment and ensure that such equipment was used. After issue was joined, the defendant moved for summary [620]*620judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion on the ground that the plaintiff assumed the risk. We affirm.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was an experienced softball player who assumed the risks inherent in playing the position of catcher without a face mask in a softball game (see Marcano v City of New York, 99 NY2d 548 [2002]; Giugliano v County of Nassau, 24 AD3d 504 [2005]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, 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, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated January 12, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was playing the position of catcher without a face mask in a softball game in the defendant’s league when a batter swung at a pitch and hit him in the face with the bat. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant asserting that it supervised the game and owed him a duty to provide safety equipment and ensure that such equipment was used. After issue was joined, the defendant moved for summary [620]*620judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion on the ground that the plaintiff assumed the risk. We affirm.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was an experienced softball player who assumed the risks inherent in playing the position of catcher without a face mask in a softball game (see Marcano v City of New York, 99 NY2d 548 [2002]; Giugliano v County of Nassau, 24 AD3d 504 [2005]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 619, 814 N.Y.S.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaikin-v-long-island-city-ymca-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack