Melko v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melko v. Town of Islip

172 A.D.2d 729, 569 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423

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

DecidedApril 22, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 729 (Melko v. Town of Islip) 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

Melko v. Town of Islip, 172 A.D.2d 729, 569 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered August 4, 1989, which denied their separate motions for summary judgment.

Ordered, that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the defendants’ motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when, as he slid toward home plate during an amateur softball game, he came into abrupt contact with a depression in the surface of the field. In their motions for summary judgment, the defendants produced evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the alleged depression on the field, and that he had in fact complained about it before the game. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the risk presented to the players by this defect in the playing surface cannot be viewed as a concealed one, and that it must, therefore, be considered as one which was consciously assumed by the plaintiff (see, Hoffman v City of New York, 172 AD2d 716 [decided herewith]; cf., Henig v Hofstra Univ., 160 AD2d 761). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), entered August 4, 1989, which denied their separate motions for summary judgment.

Ordered, that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the defendants’ motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when, as he slid toward home plate during an amateur softball game, he came into abrupt contact with a depression in the surface of the field. In their motions for summary judgment, the defendants produced evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the alleged depression on the field, and that he had in fact complained about it before the game. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the risk presented to the players by this defect in the playing surface cannot be viewed as a concealed one, and that it must, therefore, be considered as one which was consciously assumed by the plaintiff (see, Hoffman v City of New York, 172 AD2d 716 [decided herewith]; cf., Henig v Hofstra Univ., 160 AD2d 761). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 729, 569 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melko-v-town-of-islip-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack