Chrem v. City of New York

293 A.D.2d 301, 741 N.Y.S.2d 201, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3575
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 9, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New [302] York 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

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).

293 A.D.2d 301 (Chrem v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Corwin v. NYC Bike Share, LLC
238 F. Supp. 3d 475 (S.D. New York, 2017)
DeJesus v. City of New York
29 A.D.3d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)