Francis v. New York Yankees Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francis v. New York Yankees Partnership

120 A.D.3d 1127, 992 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2014 NY Slip Op 06282, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2014

Docket13009 302598/11

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1127 (Francis v. New York Yankees Partnership) 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

Francis v. New York Yankees Partnership, 120 A.D.3d 1127, 992 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2014 NY Slip Op 06282, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered April 16, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when, to avoid a golf cart coming toward her in the basement concourse of defendant’s baseball stadium, she stepped to the left and tripped over a handlebar protruding from the bottom of one of defendant’s batting screens. She contends, among other things, that the handlebar constituted a hidden trap, as it was not readily visible.

Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual notice of the alleged hazardous condition — namely, the placement of the batting screens in the basement concourse (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69, 75 [1st Dept 2004]). Although defendant argues that the batting screens were not inherently dangerous, *1128 that is not a relevant inquiry. The salient issue is whether the handlebars at the bottom of the screens were readily visible and protruded into the concourse so as to constitute a reasonably foreseeable tripping hazard (see id. at 75-76; Mauriello v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 8 AD3d 200 [1st Dept 2004]; compare Figueroa v New York City Bd. of Educ., 104 AD3d 544 [1st Dept 2013]). Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether that was the case. Whether the golf cart coming toward plaintiff constitutes an intervening act that breaks the causal nexus should await jury resolution (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered April 16, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when, to avoid a golf cart coming toward her in the basement concourse of defendant’s baseball stadium, she stepped to the left and tripped over a handlebar protruding from the bottom of one of defendant’s batting screens. She contends, among other things, that the handlebar constituted a hidden trap, as it was not readily visible.

Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it neither created nor had actual notice of the alleged hazardous condition — namely, the placement of the batting screens in the basement concourse (see Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5 AD3d 69, 75 [1st Dept 2004]). Although defendant argues that the batting screens were not inherently dangerous, *1128 that is not a relevant inquiry. The salient issue is whether the handlebars at the bottom of the screens were readily visible and protruded into the concourse so as to constitute a reasonably foreseeable tripping hazard (see id. at 75-76; Mauriello v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 8 AD3d 200 [1st Dept 2004]; compare Figueroa v New York City Bd. of Educ., 104 AD3d 544 [1st Dept 2013]). Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether that was the case. Whether the golf cart coming toward plaintiff constitutes an intervening act that breaks the causal nexus should await jury resolution (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1127, 992 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2014 NY Slip Op 06282, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-new-york-yankees-partnership-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack