Putrino v. Buffalo Athletic Club

New York Court of Appeals

Putrino v. Buffalo Athletic Club

624 N.E.2d 676, 82 N.Y.2d 779, 604 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 5237

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 624 N.E.2d 676 (Putrino v. Buffalo Athletic Club) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Putrino v. Buffalo Athletic Club, 624 N.E.2d 676, 82 N.Y.2d 779, 604 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 5237 (N.Y. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff put forth no evidence that defendant’s aerobics classroom is a "place of public assembly” subject to statutory liability under Labor Law § 470. Moreover, even if the entire facility were shown to be a "place of public assembly”, the liability imposed is merely a codification of common law and the claim is no more viable than plaintiff’s other claims (Rickard v Farmers’ Museum, 284 App Div 140, 142). With respect to each of her common-law negligence causes of action, plaintiff failed to introduce admissible evidence establishing a triable issue of fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. At best, plaintiff put forth the opinions of medical and health club experts which are conclusory and, therefore, inadequate to counter a summary judgment motion (Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 533-534, n 2). Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly modified the order of Supreme Court by granting summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff put forth no evidence that defendant’s aerobics classroom is a "place of public assembly” subject to statutory liability under Labor Law § 470. Moreover, even if the entire facility were shown to be a "place of public assembly”, the liability imposed is merely a codification of common law and the claim is no more viable than plaintiff’s other claims (Rickard v Farmers’ Museum, 284 App Div 140, 142). With respect to each of her common-law negligence causes of action, plaintiff failed to introduce admissible evidence establishing a triable issue of fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. At best, plaintiff put forth the opinions of medical and health club experts which are conclusory and, therefore, inadequate to counter a summary judgment motion (Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp., 77 NY2d 525, 533-534, n 2). Accordingly, the Appellate Division correctly modified the order of Supreme Court by granting summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 N.E.2d 676, 82 N.Y.2d 779, 604 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1993 N.Y. LEXIS 5237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putrino-v-buffalo-athletic-club-ny-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack