Mor v. Yeshiva Yesode Hatorah Nachlals Yakov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mor v. Yeshiva Yesode Hatorah Nachlals Yakov

256 A.D.2d 393, 681 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 393 (Mor v. Yeshiva Yesode Hatorah Nachlals Yakov) 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

Mor v. Yeshiva Yesode Hatorah Nachlals Yakov, 256 A.D.2d 393, 681 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant United Skates of America appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated October 6, 1997, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

Whether measured against New Jersey standards (see, NJ Stat Annot §§ 5:14-6, 5:14-7; cf., Calhanas v South Amboy Roller Rink, 292 NJ Super 513, 679 A2d 185 [1996]) or those under New York law (see, Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471), the injured plaintiff must be deemed to have assumed the risk of losing her balance and falling while roller skating at the appellant’s roller skating rink, located in New Jersey (see, Sorice v Captree Homes, 250 AD2d 755; see also, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, their submissions on the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, failed to raise issues of fact with respect to the claim that the appellant enhanced the risks inherent in the sport (see, Kazlow v City of New York, 253 AD2d 411; Loewenthal v Catskill Funland, 237 AD2d 262; cf., Baker v Briarcliff School Dist., 205 AD2d 652). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, 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, etc., the defendant United Skates of America appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated October 6, 1997, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

Whether measured against New Jersey standards (see, NJ Stat Annot §§ 5:14-6, 5:14-7; cf., Calhanas v South Amboy Roller Rink, 292 NJ Super 513, 679 A2d 185 [1996]) or those under New York law (see, Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471), the injured plaintiff must be deemed to have assumed the risk of losing her balance and falling while roller skating at the appellant’s roller skating rink, located in New Jersey (see, Sorice v Captree Homes, 250 AD2d 755; see also, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, their submissions on the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, failed to raise issues of fact with respect to the claim that the appellant enhanced the risks inherent in the sport (see, Kazlow v City of New York, 253 AD2d 411; Loewenthal v Catskill Funland, 237 AD2d 262; cf., Baker v Briarcliff School Dist., 205 AD2d 652). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 393, 681 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mor-v-yeshiva-yesode-hatorah-nachlals-yakov-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack