Harrington v. Colvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrington v. Colvin

237 A.D.2d 992, 656 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 992 (Harrington v. Colvin) 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

Harrington v. Colvin, 237 A.D.2d 992, 656 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, as a matter of law, Linda J. Harrington (plaintiff) assumed the risk of injury inherent in tacking, or saddling, a show horse. We agree. Defendants established that plaintiff assumed the risk that the horse would bolt unexpectedly and that injury could result therefrom (see, Rubenstein v Woodstock Riding Club, 208 AD2d 1160; Morrelli v Giordano, 206 AD2d 464, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 858; Hammond v Spruce Meadow Farm, 199 AD2d 1014). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, as a matter of law, Linda J. Harrington (plaintiff) assumed the risk of injury inherent in tacking, or saddling, a show horse. We agree. Defendants established that plaintiff assumed the risk that the horse would bolt unexpectedly and that injury could result therefrom (see, Rubenstein v Woodstock Riding Club, 208 AD2d 1160; Morrelli v Giordano, 206 AD2d 464, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 858; Hammond v Spruce Meadow Farm, 199 AD2d 1014). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 992, 656 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-colvin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack