Iosue v. Loughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iosue v. Loughlin

262 A.D.2d 532, 692 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7062

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 532 (Iosue v. Loughlin) 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

Iosue v. Loughlin, 262 A.D.2d 532, 692 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 18, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff-teacher assumed the risk of being hit by a bat during the softball game in which she participated, in light of the evidence supporting her claim of inherent compulsion by her employer, the third-party defendant school, to participate in the game (see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658; see also, Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 18, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff-teacher assumed the risk of being hit by a bat during the softball game in which she participated, in light of the evidence supporting her claim of inherent compulsion by her employer, the third-party defendant school, to participate in the game (see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658; see also, Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 532, 692 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iosue-v-loughlin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack