Connolly v. Peninsula Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connolly v. Peninsula Group

48 A.D.3d 365, 852 N.Y.S.2d 104

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 365 (Connolly v. Peninsula Group) 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

Connolly v. Peninsula Group, 48 A.D.3d 365, 852 N.Y.S.2d 104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered May 24, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff alleges that he was seriously injured while participating in member activities at the Peninsula Spa under the supervision of defendant trainer Cardoso. During a training session, Cardoso, who was aware of plaintiffs limited mobility in his shoulder and complaints about certain exercises, allegedly insisted that plaintiff engage in a modified lateral pulldown. During that session, plaintiff felt a snap in his shoulder and later learned that a piece of steel in his shoulder from a previous surgery had dislodged.

In support of the motion to dismiss, defendants argued, inter alia, that plaintiff’s claims were barred by a release that included a covenant against bringing suit for personal injuries incurred in a personal training session. Although the language of the release was clear and unambiguous, it is void as against public policy (General Obligations Law § 5-326), inasmuch as the training sessions plaintiff received were ancillary to the recreational activities offered by the spa (see Debell v Wellbridge Club Mgt., Inc., 40 AD3d 248, 249 [2007]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered May 24, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff alleges that he was seriously injured while participating in member activities at the Peninsula Spa under the supervision of defendant trainer Cardoso. During a training session, Cardoso, who was aware of plaintiffs limited mobility in his shoulder and complaints about certain exercises, allegedly insisted that plaintiff engage in a modified lateral pulldown. During that session, plaintiff felt a snap in his shoulder and later learned that a piece of steel in his shoulder from a previous surgery had dislodged.

In support of the motion to dismiss, defendants argued, inter alia, that plaintiff’s claims were barred by a release that included a covenant against bringing suit for personal injuries incurred in a personal training session. Although the language of the release was clear and unambiguous, it is void as against public policy (General Obligations Law § 5-326), inasmuch as the training sessions plaintiff received were ancillary to the recreational activities offered by the spa (see Debell v Wellbridge Club Mgt., Inc., 40 AD3d 248, 249 [2007]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 365, 852 N.Y.S.2d 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connolly-v-peninsula-group-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack