Horowitz v. Chen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horowitz v. Chen

141 A.D.3d 410, 35 N.Y.S.3d 60

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2016

Docket1649 152242/14

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.3d 410 (Horowitz v. Chen) 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

Horowitz v. Chen, 141 A.D.3d 410, 35 N.Y.S.3d 60 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered November 24, 2015, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff snowboarder was injured when, while standing at the base of a beginner ski slope and speaking with a friend, defendant struck her while skiing at approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. Although there are inherent risks in the sports of skiing and snowboarding, “participants do not consent to conduct that is reckless, intentional or so negligent as to create an unreasonably increased risk” (Pantalone v Talcott, 52 AD3d 1148, 1149 [3d Dept 2008]).

Here, the record presents triable issues as to whether defendant had engaged in reckless conduct as he skied into a crowded area at the base of a beginner’s slope, which was at or near a marked safety zone, and that he did so despite his awareness of his limited abilities to safely handle such speed under the snow surface conditions presented. Furthermore, in view of the significant injuries sustained by plaintiff, reasonable inferences may be drawn that she endured a violent collision, which raises an issue as to whether the speed at which defendant was skiing was reckless under the circumstances (see Moore v Hoffman, 114 AD3d 1265 [4th Dept 2014]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered November 24, 2015, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff snowboarder was injured when, while standing at the base of a beginner ski slope and speaking with a friend, defendant struck her while skiing at approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. Although there are inherent risks in the sports of skiing and snowboarding, “participants do not consent to conduct that is reckless, intentional or so negligent as to create an unreasonably increased risk” (Pantalone v Talcott, 52 AD3d 1148, 1149 [3d Dept 2008]).

Here, the record presents triable issues as to whether defendant had engaged in reckless conduct as he skied into a crowded area at the base of a beginner’s slope, which was at or near a marked safety zone, and that he did so despite his awareness of his limited abilities to safely handle such speed under the snow surface conditions presented. Furthermore, in view of the significant injuries sustained by plaintiff, reasonable inferences may be drawn that she endured a violent collision, which raises an issue as to whether the speed at which defendant was skiing was reckless under the circumstances (see Moore v Hoffman, 114 AD3d 1265 [4th Dept 2014]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.3d 410, 35 N.Y.S.3d 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horowitz-v-chen-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack