Chrem v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chrem v. City of New York

293 A.D.2d 301, 741 N.Y.S.2d 201, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3575

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

DecidedApril 9, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 301 (Chrem v. City of New York) 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

Chrem v. City of New York, 293 A.D.2d 301, 741 N.Y.S.2d 201, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New [302]*302York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered December 18, 2000, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs argument that defendants improperly created a condition that was concealed and dangerous to bicyclists, on a path that defendants knew or should have known was being used by bicyclists. As a matter of law, the possibility of a steep drop-off in the back of a dirt mound that is rounded in the front is inherent in the activity of riding a bike in an area that plaintiff knew or should have known is not designated for bike riding, and, in any event, did not create a danger over and above the usual dangers of that activity (see, Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 236-237). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New [302]*302York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered December 18, 2000, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs argument that defendants improperly created a condition that was concealed and dangerous to bicyclists, on a path that defendants knew or should have known was being used by bicyclists. As a matter of law, the possibility of a steep drop-off in the back of a dirt mound that is rounded in the front is inherent in the activity of riding a bike in an area that plaintiff knew or should have known is not designated for bike riding, and, in any event, did not create a danger over and above the usual dangers of that activity (see, Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 236-237). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 301, 741 N.Y.S.2d 201, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrem-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack