Checchi v. Socorro

169 A.D.2d 807, 565 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 917
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 807 (Checchi v. Socorro) 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
Checchi v. Socorro, 169 A.D.2d 807, 565 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of [808]*808an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered June 6, 1989, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the complaint dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when he was struck in the eye by a bat which flew out of the hands of the infant defendant Tony Socorro while playing stickball. As this court recently stated, "[pjursuant to the doctrine of assumption of risk, an injured party may not seek compensation for injuries incurred as the consequence of some risk or danger usually associated with a pursuit voluntarily undertaken. Thus, when it is shown indisputably that a particular injury was caused by a condition or practice which is common to a particular sport (see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432), summary judgment is warranted” (Cuesta v Immaculate Conception R. C. Church, 168 AD2d 411). We find this to be such a case. The danger of a bat slipping out of a player’s hands is common in a game of stickball, and was foreseeable by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the slight difference in diameter of the bat or the lack of tape on the end enhanced the risks inherent in the game of stickball, Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Morrisey v. Haskell
133 A.D.3d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Shea v. Sky Bounce Ball Co.
294 A.D.2d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Muniz v. Warwick School District
293 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Goodlett v. Kalishek
223 F.3d 32 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Redden v. Curren
245 A.D.2d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Morgan v. State
685 N.E.2d 202 (New York Court of Appeals, 1997)
Totino v. Nassau County Council of Boy Scouts of America
213 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Smolkin v. Driver
202 A.D.2d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Strauss v. Town of Oyster Bay
201 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kennedy v. Rockville Centre Union Free School District
186 A.D.2d 110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 A.D.2d 807, 565 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/checchi-v-socorro-nyappdiv-1991.