Geffen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Geffen v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 683, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 487 (Geffen v. City 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

Geffen v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 683, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 12, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff fell and was injured while skating at an ice skating rink owned and operated by the defendants. She claims that they negligently rented her skates which were not her correct size. However, the plaintiff’s own testimony reveals that she knew that the skates were loose and ill-fitting, but that knowledge did not deter her from continuing to skate. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of assumption of the risk warrants the granting of judgment in favor of the defendants (see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432; Lo Piccolo v Town of [488]*488Oyster Bay, 260 AD2d 606; Fox v Town of Oyster Bay, 251 AD2d 621; Giaimo v Roller Derby Skate Corp., 234 AD2d 340). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 12, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff fell and was injured while skating at an ice skating rink owned and operated by the defendants. She claims that they negligently rented her skates which were not her correct size. However, the plaintiff’s own testimony reveals that she knew that the skates were loose and ill-fitting, but that knowledge did not deter her from continuing to skate. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of assumption of the risk warrants the granting of judgment in favor of the defendants (see, e.g., Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432; Lo Piccolo v Town of [488]*488Oyster Bay, 260 AD2d 606; Fox v Town of Oyster Bay, 251 AD2d 621; Giaimo v Roller Derby Skate Corp., 234 AD2d 340). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 487, 705 N.Y.S.2d 683, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geffen-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack