Lamandia-Cochi v. Tulloch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamandia-Cochi v. Tulloch

305 A.D.2d 1062, 759 N.Y.S.2d 411, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4821

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

DecidedMay 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 1062 (Lamandia-Cochi v. Tulloch) 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

Lamandia-Cochi v. Tulloch, 305 A.D.2d 1062, 759 N.Y.S.2d 411, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Shaheen, J.), entered November 9, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained by her 13-year-old son when he fell while attempting to slide down a IV2inch by HA-inch wooden handrail adjacent to the porch steps of a residence allegedly owned by defendants. Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The record establishes that, in attempting to slide down the handrail, plaintiffs son was aware of and voluntarily assumed the risk of that activity, including the risk that the handrail might bend or shift beneath him (see Davis v Kellenberg Mem. High School, 284 AD2d 293 [2001]; see also Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]; Bierach v Nichols, 248 AD2d 916 [1998]; cf. Utkin v Rademacher, 261 AD2d 840 [1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 796 [1999]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Shaheen, J.), entered November 9, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained by her 13-year-old son when he fell while attempting to slide down a IV2inch by HA-inch wooden handrail adjacent to the porch steps of a residence allegedly owned by defendants. Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The record establishes that, in attempting to slide down the handrail, plaintiffs son was aware of and voluntarily assumed the risk of that activity, including the risk that the handrail might bend or shift beneath him (see Davis v Kellenberg Mem. High School, 284 AD2d 293 [2001]; see also Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]; Bierach v Nichols, 248 AD2d 916 [1998]; cf. Utkin v Rademacher, 261 AD2d 840 [1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 796 [1999]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 1062, 759 N.Y.S.2d 411, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamandia-cochi-v-tulloch-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack