Gilman v. Molly Fox Studios, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilman v. Molly Fox Studios, Inc.

225 A.D.2d 404, 640 N.Y.2d 3, 640 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2710

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 404 (Gilman v. Molly Fox Studios, Inc.) 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

Gilman v. Molly Fox Studios, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 404, 640 N.Y.2d 3, 640 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff was injured when she fell over a coparticipant in an aerobics class conducted by defendants. Even assuming, arguendo, that the accident resulted from an allegedly overcrowded class, plaintiff admittedly attended 10 previous classes of the same size and had not complained about overcrowding. Thus, plaintiff, by her voluntary participation in the class, consented to the activity allegedly resulting in her injury, the risk of which was a foreseeable consequence of her participation (see, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439). There also was no evidence that defendants had breached a duty of care owed to plaintiff. We have [405]*405considered plaintiffs other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Plaintiff was injured when she fell over a coparticipant in an aerobics class conducted by defendants. Even assuming, arguendo, that the accident resulted from an allegedly overcrowded class, plaintiff admittedly attended 10 previous classes of the same size and had not complained about overcrowding. Thus, plaintiff, by her voluntary participation in the class, consented to the activity allegedly resulting in her injury, the risk of which was a foreseeable consequence of her participation (see, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439). There also was no evidence that defendants had breached a duty of care owed to plaintiff. We have [405]*405considered plaintiffs other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 404, 640 N.Y.2d 3, 640 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilman-v-molly-fox-studios-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack