Colon v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colon v. City of New York

200 A.D.2d 704, 607 N.Y.S.2d 371

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 704 (Colon 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

Colon v. City of New York, 200 A.D.2d 704, 607 N.Y.S.2d 371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated July 16, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The then-14-year-old infant plaintiff sustained personal injuries when she dove into a pool which was owned, operated, and maintained by the defendant. Despite the fact that she was aware of the depth of the water and had read the "no diving” caution painted around the pool deck, she alleges that her injuries were proximately caused by the defendant’s negli[705]*705gence in that, among other things, the lifeguards did not orally enforce the "no diving” rule.

Even assuming that the defendant breached a duty by failing to reinforce the written "no diving” prohibition, on this record it cannot be said that that negligence was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries (see, Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693; Valdez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 697; Anello v Town of Babylon, 143 AD2d 714; cf., Jodko v City of New York, 163 AD2d 275). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Santucci, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated July 16, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The then-14-year-old infant plaintiff sustained personal injuries when she dove into a pool which was owned, operated, and maintained by the defendant. Despite the fact that she was aware of the depth of the water and had read the "no diving” caution painted around the pool deck, she alleges that her injuries were proximately caused by the defendant’s negli[705]*705gence in that, among other things, the lifeguards did not orally enforce the "no diving” rule.

Even assuming that the defendant breached a duty by failing to reinforce the written "no diving” prohibition, on this record it cannot be said that that negligence was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries (see, Smith v Stark, 67 NY2d 693; Valdez v City of New York, 148 AD2d 697; Anello v Town of Babylon, 143 AD2d 714; cf., Jodko v City of New York, 163 AD2d 275). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 704, 607 N.Y.S.2d 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colon-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack