Meli v. Star Power National Talent Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meli v. Star Power National Talent Co.

283 A.D.2d 617, 725 N.Y.S.2d 92, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5524

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 617 (Meli v. Star Power National Talent Co.) 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

Meli v. Star Power National Talent Co., 283 A.D.2d 617, 725 N.Y.S.2d 92, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rosenberg, J.), dated November 16, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[618]*618Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff alleges that she was injured while participating in a dance competition sponsored by the defendant when the makeshift stage where she was performing started to shake. The defendant has conceded for the purpose of the underlying motion and this appeal that the stage was defective. However, the plaintiff’s own testimony at her examination before trial indicated that she had actual knowledge of this defect. Under the circumstances, the doctrine of assumption of risk mandates the granting of summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Lo Piccolo v Town of Oyster Bay Dept. of Parks, 260 AD2d 606). As a matter of law, there was no showing of inherent compulsion (see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rosenberg, J.), dated November 16, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[618]*618Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff alleges that she was injured while participating in a dance competition sponsored by the defendant when the makeshift stage where she was performing started to shake. The defendant has conceded for the purpose of the underlying motion and this appeal that the stage was defective. However, the plaintiff’s own testimony at her examination before trial indicated that she had actual knowledge of this defect. Under the circumstances, the doctrine of assumption of risk mandates the granting of summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Lo Piccolo v Town of Oyster Bay Dept. of Parks, 260 AD2d 606). As a matter of law, there was no showing of inherent compulsion (see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 617, 725 N.Y.S.2d 92, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meli-v-star-power-national-talent-co-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack