LaRocca v. Pleasant Valley Little League

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaRocca v. Pleasant Valley Little League

15 A.D.3d 628, 791 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2005

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 628 (LaRocca v. Pleasant Valley Little League) 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

LaRocca v. Pleasant Valley Little League, 15 A.D.3d 628, 791 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated June 11, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the doctrine of assumption of the risk ordinarily associated with being a spectator at a sporting event (see Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325 [1981]; Koenig v Town of Huntington, 10 AD3d 632, 633 [2004]; Suarez v HBQVB Athletic Assn., 303 AD2d 396, 397 [2003]; Honohan v Turrone, 297 AD2d 705, 706 [2002]; Lynch v Board of Educ. for Oceanside School Dist., 225 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1996]; Clark v Goshen Sunday Morning Softball League, 122 AD2d 769, 770 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to present competent evidence that the defendants did not provide adequate supervision or that the defendants unreasonably increased the inherent risks of injury from the game of baseball (see id.; cf. Muniz v Warwick School Dist., 293 AD2d 724 [2002]). Krausman, J.P, Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated June 11, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the doctrine of assumption of the risk ordinarily associated with being a spectator at a sporting event (see Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325 [1981]; Koenig v Town of Huntington, 10 AD3d 632, 633 [2004]; Suarez v HBQVB Athletic Assn., 303 AD2d 396, 397 [2003]; Honohan v Turrone, 297 AD2d 705, 706 [2002]; Lynch v Board of Educ. for Oceanside School Dist., 225 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1996]; Clark v Goshen Sunday Morning Softball League, 122 AD2d 769, 770 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to present competent evidence that the defendants did not provide adequate supervision or that the defendants unreasonably increased the inherent risks of injury from the game of baseball (see id.; cf. Muniz v Warwick School Dist., 293 AD2d 724 [2002]). Krausman, J.P, Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 628, 791 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larocca-v-pleasant-valley-little-league-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack