Leftow v. Kutsher's Country Club Corp.

270 A.D.2d 233, 705 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2525
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 6, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 233 (Leftow v. Kutsher's Country Club Corp.) 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
Leftow v. Kutsher's Country Club Corp., 270 A.D.2d 233, 705 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated March 16, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff's purchased a homeowners’ membership in the defendant country club which entitled them to use certain recreational facilities operated by the defendant, including tennis courts. The plaintiff Jerome Leftow was injured while using [234]*234one of these courts. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the “hold harmless” clause contained in the homeowners’ membership agreement. The Supreme Court granted the motion. We reverse.

The “hold harmless” clause under review is invalid pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-326. That statute protects consumers from the effect of form releases printed on membership applications and similar documents when such releases are- offered in connection with the use of a “place of amusement or recreation” for which a fee is paid (General Obligations Law § 5-326; see, Rogowicki v Troser Mgt., 212 AD2d 1035; Blanc v Windham Mtn. Club, 115 Misc 2d 404, affd 92 AD2d 529). The terms of the statute apply to Leftow, who paid a fee which entitled him to various privileges including the use of the tennis court, a place of recreation.

Moreover, issues of fact exist with respect to the defense of assumption of the risk. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Winston v. Sharfstein
65 A.D.3d 1053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Garnett v. Strike Holdings LLC
64 A.D.3d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court
161 P.3d 1095 (California Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D.2d 233, 705 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leftow-v-kutshers-country-club-corp-nyappdiv-2000.