Courtney v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Courtney v. State of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 6250, 153 A.D.3d 780, 61 N.Y.S.3d 256

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

DecidedAugust 23, 2017

Docket2015-08232

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6250 (Courtney v. State 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

Courtney v. State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 6250, 153 A.D.3d 780, 61 N.Y.S.3d 256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*781 In a claim to recover daiiiages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Lopez-Summa, J.), dated April 28, 2015, which granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim and denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant allegedly was injured when he struck his head while diving into waves at Jones Beach State Park. In a claim dated July 25, 2011, the claimant alleged that the negligence of the defendant, the State of New York, caused his injuries. The claimant moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim, arguing that it had no duty to warn, that it satisfied its general duty to provide adequate supervision of the beach, and that the claimant assumed the risks inherent in swimming in the ocean. The Court of Claims granted the defendant’s cross motion and denied the claimant’s motion. The claimant appeals. We affirm.

Governmental entities owe a duty to “ ‘act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining [their] property in a reasonably safe condition’ ” (Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997, 998 [1983], quoting Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; see Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 273 [1952]). “The duty goes beyond the mere maintenance of the physical condition of the park” (Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY at 273), as there is also a “recognized duty of general supervision” (Heard v City of New York, 82 NY2d 66, 71 [1993]). The degree of general supervision must be “adequate” (Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY at 273).

Here, in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it furnished a sufficient number of lifeguards, that those lifeguards were experienced and competent, and that they reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure (see Seetaram v State of New York, 146 AD3d 916, 917 [2017]). Furthermore, the defendant had no duty to warn swimmers of threats arising from the existence of natural, transitory conditions of the ocean floor (see id. at 917). In opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

For the same reasons, the claimant failed to establish his *782 prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because he did not demonstrate that the defendant breached a duty of care that was owed to him. Therefore, the Court of Claims properly denied the claimant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Christopher, JJ., concur.

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

*781 In a claim to recover daiiiages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Lopez-Summa, J.), dated April 28, 2015, which granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim and denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant allegedly was injured when he struck his head while diving into waves at Jones Beach State Park. In a claim dated July 25, 2011, the claimant alleged that the negligence of the defendant, the State of New York, caused his injuries. The claimant moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim, arguing that it had no duty to warn, that it satisfied its general duty to provide adequate supervision of the beach, and that the claimant assumed the risks inherent in swimming in the ocean. The Court of Claims granted the defendant’s cross motion and denied the claimant’s motion. The claimant appeals. We affirm.

Governmental entities owe a duty to “ ‘act as a reasonable [person] in maintaining [their] property in a reasonably safe condition’ ” (Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997, 998 [1983], quoting Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; see Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 273 [1952]). “The duty goes beyond the mere maintenance of the physical condition of the park” (Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY at 273), as there is also a “recognized duty of general supervision” (Heard v City of New York, 82 NY2d 66, 71 [1993]). The degree of general supervision must be “adequate” (Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY at 273).

Here, in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it furnished a sufficient number of lifeguards, that those lifeguards were experienced and competent, and that they reacted to the situation in accordance with proper procedure (see Seetaram v State of New York, 146 AD3d 916, 917 [2017]). Furthermore, the defendant had no duty to warn swimmers of threats arising from the existence of natural, transitory conditions of the ocean floor (see id. at 917). In opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

For the same reasons, the claimant failed to establish his *782 prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because he did not demonstrate that the defendant breached a duty of care that was owed to him. Therefore, the Court of Claims properly denied the claimant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6250, 153 A.D.3d 780, 61 N.Y.S.3d 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courtney-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack