Delaney v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delaney v. Town of Hempstead

204 A.D.2d 511, 611 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5284

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

DecidedMay 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 511 (Delaney v. Town of Hempstead) 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

Delaney v. Town of Hempstead, 204 A.D.2d 511, 611 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated June 16, 1992, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff, an experienced tennis player, was injured when she collided with a wooden fence while participating in a tennis match on one of the defendant’s courts. Inasmuch as the injured plaintiff admitted that she had previously played tennis on this court on several occasions and was aware of the presence of the fence, she assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily playing on the tennis court (see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432; Calabro v Plattekill Mt. Ski Ctr., 197 AD2d 558; Pascucci v Town of Oyster Bay, 186 AD2d 725; Melko v Town of Islip, 172 AD2d 729). The defendant fulfilled its duty of care by making the tennis court as safe as it appeared to be (see, Turcotte v Fell, supra; Calabro v Plattekill Mt. Ski Ctr., supra; McDonald v Huntington Crescent Club, 152 AD2d 543).

In view of the foregoing, we have no occasion to consider the defendant’s remaining contention. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, O’Brien and Joy, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated June 16, 1992, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff, an experienced tennis player, was injured when she collided with a wooden fence while participating in a tennis match on one of the defendant’s courts. Inasmuch as the injured plaintiff admitted that she had previously played tennis on this court on several occasions and was aware of the presence of the fence, she assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily playing on the tennis court (see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432; Calabro v Plattekill Mt. Ski Ctr., 197 AD2d 558; Pascucci v Town of Oyster Bay, 186 AD2d 725; Melko v Town of Islip, 172 AD2d 729). The defendant fulfilled its duty of care by making the tennis court as safe as it appeared to be (see, Turcotte v Fell, supra; Calabro v Plattekill Mt. Ski Ctr., supra; McDonald v Huntington Crescent Club, 152 AD2d 543).

In view of the foregoing, we have no occasion to consider the defendant’s remaining contention. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, O’Brien and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 511, 611 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaney-v-town-of-hempstead-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack