Kamara v. L.A. Fitness Intl., LLC

2023 NY Slip Op 02973
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 6, 2023
DocketIndex No. 20603/18E Appeal No. 384 Case No. 2022-04268
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2023 NY Slip Op 02973 (Kamara v. L.A. Fitness Intl., LLC) 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
Kamara v. L.A. Fitness Intl., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Kamara v L.A. Fitness Intl., LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 02973)
Kamara v L.A. Fitness Intl., LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 02973
Decided on June 06, 2023
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: June 06, 2023
Before: Renwick, A.P.J., Kern, Singh, Scarpulla, Higgitt, JJ.

Index No. 20603/18E Appeal No. 384 Case No. 2022-04268

[*1]Aminu Kamara, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

L.A. Fitness International, LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants.


Goldberg Segalla, LLP, White Plains (William T. O'Connell of counsel), for appellants.

Edelman, Krasin & Jaye, PLLC, Westbury (Aaron D. Fine of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered on or about August 30, 2022, which granted plaintiff Aminu Kamara's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, unanimously reversed, on the facts, and the motion denied, without costs.

In this action, plaintiff was injured while exercising on a cable row exercise machine when the handle disconnected from the machine. There are issues of fact as to the element of exclusive control (see Barney-Yeboah v Metro-North Commuter R.R.,25 NY3d945 [2015]; Tora v GVP AG, 31 AD3d 341, 342 [1st Dept 2006]; see also Morejon v Rais Constr. Co., 7 NY3d 203 [2006]). It is not sufficiently established as a matter of law that the handle and its attachments were exclusively within the defendants' control

(see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 228 [1986]; Pavon v Rudin, 254 AD2d 143, 146 [1st Dept 1998]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: June 6, 2023



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

Related

Kamara v. L.A. Fitness Intl., LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 02973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 NY Slip Op 02973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamara-v-la-fitness-intl-llc-nyappdiv-2023.