Lozito v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lozito v. City of New York

283 A.D.2d 251, 724 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5055

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

DecidedMay 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 251 (Lozito v. City of New York) 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

Lozito v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 251, 724 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered April 11, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while skating on defendants’ rink, was injured when she fell after being hit by one or two fellow skaters. This action to recover for the injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of that fall was properly dismissed since collisions between skaters, such as the one sustained here, are a common occurrence and a risk that all skaters assume (Zambrana v City of New York, 262 AD2d 87, affd 94 NY2d 887). Moreover, given the short period in which the events culminating in plaintiffs fall took place, no triable issue is presented as to whether plaintiffs fall was attributable to some failure by defendants’ skating guards, much less as to whether any such failure unreasonably enhanced the ordinary risks of skating on defendants’ rink (Vaughan v Skate Key, 270 AD2d 103).

[252]*252We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered April 11, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, while skating on defendants’ rink, was injured when she fell after being hit by one or two fellow skaters. This action to recover for the injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of that fall was properly dismissed since collisions between skaters, such as the one sustained here, are a common occurrence and a risk that all skaters assume (Zambrana v City of New York, 262 AD2d 87, affd 94 NY2d 887). Moreover, given the short period in which the events culminating in plaintiffs fall took place, no triable issue is presented as to whether plaintiffs fall was attributable to some failure by defendants’ skating guards, much less as to whether any such failure unreasonably enhanced the ordinary risks of skating on defendants’ rink (Vaughan v Skate Key, 270 AD2d 103).

[252]*252We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 251, 724 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lozito-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack