Ladmer v. Savino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ladmer v. Savino

284 A.D.2d 432, 726 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6346

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 18, 2001·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated February 20, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured by a horse during her visit to a farm owned by the defendants William S. Savino, Jr., and Marian Savino. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the doctrine of assumption of the risk (see, Lecznar v Sanford, 265 AD2d 728). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated February 20, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured by a horse during her visit to a farm owned by the defendants William S. Savino, Jr., and Marian Savino. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the doctrine of assumption of the risk (see, Lecznar v Sanford, 265 AD2d 728). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Ladmer v. Savino, 284 A.D.2d 432, 726 N.Y.S.2d 570, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

284 A.D.2d 432 (Ladmer v. Savino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related