Lo Piccolo v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lo Piccolo v. Town of Oyster Bay

260 A.D.2d 606, 688 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4293

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 606 (Lo Piccolo v. Town of Oyster Bay) 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

Lo Piccolo v. Town of Oyster Bay, 260 A.D.2d 606, 688 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered April 7, 1998, which denied a 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 plaintiff was injured while ice skating at a Town of Oyster Bay skating rink. The plaintiff alleged that the ice was not [607]*607maintained in proper condition. However, the plaintiff’s own testimony at a pretrial hearing indicated that he had actual knowledge of defects in the surface of the ice and nevertheless continued to skate. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of assumption of the risk mandates the granting of summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Byrne v Westchester County, 178 AD2d 575). Mangano, P. J., H. Miller, Feuerstein, Schmidt and Smith, 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 appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered April 7, 1998, which denied a 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 plaintiff was injured while ice skating at a Town of Oyster Bay skating rink. The plaintiff alleged that the ice was not [607]*607maintained in proper condition. However, the plaintiff’s own testimony at a pretrial hearing indicated that he had actual knowledge of defects in the surface of the ice and nevertheless continued to skate. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of assumption of the risk mandates the granting of summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Byrne v Westchester County, 178 AD2d 575). Mangano, P. J., H. Miller, Feuerstein, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 606, 688 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lo-piccolo-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack