Koubek v. Denis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koubek v. Denis

21 A.D.3d 453, 799 N.Y.S.2d 746

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

DecidedAugust 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 453 (Koubek v. Denis) 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

Koubek v. Denis, 21 A.D.3d 453, 799 N.Y.S.2d 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated June 21, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The 54-year-old plaintiff sustained personal injuries after she climbed onto a three-feet high trampoline located in the defendant’s backyard and fell onto the grass while attempting to stand.

Under the assumption of the risk doctrine, a defendant is relieved of liability for injuries to a party who participates in a sporting event or recreational activity where such party is aware of the risks inherent in such activity, has an appreciation of the nature of such risks, and voluntarily assumes those risks (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Lapinski v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 306 AD2d 320, 321 [2003]). The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the plaintiff assumed the risk of using the subject trampoline (see Liccione v Gearing, 252 AD2d 956 [1998]).

Since the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Lumley v Motts, 1 AD3d 573 [2003]; Lapinski v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, supra; Liccione v Gearing, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Cozier and Lifson, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated June 21, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The 54-year-old plaintiff sustained personal injuries after she climbed onto a three-feet high trampoline located in the defendant’s backyard and fell onto the grass while attempting to stand.

Under the assumption of the risk doctrine, a defendant is relieved of liability for injuries to a party who participates in a sporting event or recreational activity where such party is aware of the risks inherent in such activity, has an appreciation of the nature of such risks, and voluntarily assumes those risks (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Lapinski v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 306 AD2d 320, 321 [2003]). The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the plaintiff assumed the risk of using the subject trampoline (see Liccione v Gearing, 252 AD2d 956 [1998]).

Since the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Lumley v Motts, 1 AD3d 573 [2003]; Lapinski v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, supra; Liccione v Gearing, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 453, 799 N.Y.S.2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koubek-v-denis-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack