Hansman v. Village of Lynbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansman v. Village of Lynbrook

251 A.D.2d 373, 672 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6626

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 373 (Hansman v. Village of Lynbrook) 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

Hansman v. Village of Lynbrook, 251 A.D.2d 373, 672 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.), dated June 9, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in playing football in the street where he sustained his injuries, including those risks associated with the condition of the playing surface and any open and obvious conditions on it (see, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277; Garafola v City of New York, 247 AD2d 581; Reynolds v Jefferson Val. Racquet Club, 238 AD2d 493; Walner v City of New York, 243 AD2d 629; McDaniels v City of New York, 234 AD2d 432; Touti v City of New York, 233 AD2d 496). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.), dated June 9, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in playing football in the street where he sustained his injuries, including those risks associated with the condition of the playing surface and any open and obvious conditions on it (see, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277; Garafola v City of New York, 247 AD2d 581; Reynolds v Jefferson Val. Racquet Club, 238 AD2d 493; Walner v City of New York, 243 AD2d 629; McDaniels v City of New York, 234 AD2d 432; Touti v City of New York, 233 AD2d 496). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 373, 672 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansman-v-village-of-lynbrook-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack