Cherry v. Hofstra University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cherry v. Hofstra University

274 A.D.2d 443, 711 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7857

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

DecidedJuly 17, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 443 (Cherry v. Hofstra University) 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

Cherry v. Hofstra University, 274 A.D.2d 443, 711 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated November 3, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured during lacrosse practice when he ran into a bench which was located on the side of the defendant’s playing field. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The bench was an open and obvious condition which could “readily be observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses” (Paulo v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 233 AD2d 380). In opposition to the defendant’s establishment of a prima facie case, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson and Goldstein, 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, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated November 3, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured during lacrosse practice when he ran into a bench which was located on the side of the defendant’s playing field. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The bench was an open and obvious condition which could “readily be observed by those employing the reasonable use of their senses” (Paulo v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 233 AD2d 380). In opposition to the defendant’s establishment of a prima facie case, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 443, 711 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherry-v-hofstra-university-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack