Conolly v. St. John's University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conolly v. St. John's University

176 A.D.2d 625

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 625 (Conolly v. St. John's 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

Conolly v. St. John's University, 176 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered March 25, 1991, which, inter alia, denied that branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant St. John’s University argues the personal injury action of its enrolled student, plaintiff Carol Conolly should be dismissed inasmuch as she assumed the risk of injury when she played in a school tennis match with knowledge that the court on which she was playing was defective. Plaintiff’s affidavit, submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss, indicates that to preserve her continuing entitlement to a scholarship, she was required to play in all University tennis matches. This affidavit raises a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s decision to play on the defective court, on the date in question, was a voluntary act. (See, e.g., Verduce v Board of Higher Educ., 8 NY2d 928, revg 9 AD2d 214.) Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered March 25, 1991, which, inter alia, denied that branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant St. John’s University argues the personal injury action of its enrolled student, plaintiff Carol Conolly should be dismissed inasmuch as she assumed the risk of injury when she played in a school tennis match with knowledge that the court on which she was playing was defective. Plaintiff’s affidavit, submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss, indicates that to preserve her continuing entitlement to a scholarship, she was required to play in all University tennis matches. This affidavit raises a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s decision to play on the defective court, on the date in question, was a voluntary act. (See, e.g., Verduce v Board of Higher Educ., 8 NY2d 928, revg 9 AD2d 214.) Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conolly-v-st-johns-university-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack