Greenman v. Skyrink Winter Games Training Facilities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenman v. Skyrink Winter Games Training Facilities, Inc.

236 A.D.2d 273, 654 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1257

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 273 (Greenman v. Skyrink Winter Games Training Facilities, 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

Greenman v. Skyrink Winter Games Training Facilities, Inc., 236 A.D.2d 273, 654 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered December 14, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found issues of fact as to whether the alleged improper actions by defendant’s employee were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s reaction to the alleged misconduct was part of a connected chain of events in a split-second emergency situation, and is therefore distinguishable from the clearly "conscious” choice made by the plaintiff in Clark v Sachem School Dist. (227 AD2d 366, 367). While plaintiff assumed the usual risks of ice skating, the guard’s alleged misconduct was not part of that risk (cf., Nunez v Recreation Rooms & Settlement, 229 AD2d 359). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered December 14, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly found issues of fact as to whether the alleged improper actions by defendant’s employee were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s reaction to the alleged misconduct was part of a connected chain of events in a split-second emergency situation, and is therefore distinguishable from the clearly "conscious” choice made by the plaintiff in Clark v Sachem School Dist. (227 AD2d 366, 367). While plaintiff assumed the usual risks of ice skating, the guard’s alleged misconduct was not part of that risk (cf., Nunez v Recreation Rooms & Settlement, 229 AD2d 359). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 273, 654 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenman-v-skyrink-winter-games-training-facilities-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack