Mangan v. Engineer's Country Club, Inc.

79 A.D.3d 706, 912 N.Y.S.2d 643
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 7, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 706 (Mangan v. Engineer's Country Club, Inc.) 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
Mangan v. Engineer's Country Club, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 706, 912 N.Y.S.2d 643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), entered August 14, 2009, as granted the motion of the defendant Engineer’s Country Club, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell while playing golf on a golf course owned by the defendant Engineer’s Country Club, Inc. (hereinafter Engineer’s), when he descended a staircase leading from the cart path to the eleventh tee box. Engineer’s moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” (Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]). Those risks include risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it (see Sykes v County of Erie, 94 NY2d 912 [2000]; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270 [1985]). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applies (see Galski v State of New York, 289 AD2d 195 [2001]; Bockelmann v New Paltz Golf Course, 284 AD2d 783, 784 [2001]), and thus, Engineer’s was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ, Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Conrad v. Holiday Val., Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 05333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
KIRBY, BARBARA v. DRUMLINS, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Kirby v. Drumlins, Inc.
145 A.D.3d 1561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Bryant v. Town of Brookhaven
135 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Simon v. Hamlet Windwatch Development, LLC
120 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Rochford v. Woodloch Pines, Inc.
824 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D. New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 A.D.3d 706, 912 N.Y.S.2d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangan-v-engineers-country-club-inc-nyappdiv-2010.