Restaino v. Yonkers Board of Education

13 A.D.3d 432, 785 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 13, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 432 (Restaino v. Yonkers Board of Education) 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
Restaino v. Yonkers Board of Education, 13 A.D.3d 432, 785 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J), entered December 12, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, an adult recreational bicyclist, was injured when his bicycle struck a pothole or rut in the closed parking lot/ driveway area of a public school near his residence. The plaintiff had bicycled in the school lot on at least 10 previous occasions and, on the date of his accident, had successfully avoided three or four other hazards in the lot during the 20 minutes preceding his fall.

Here, the defendants sustained their burden of demonstrating prima facie both that the plaintiff assumed the risks associated with riding his bicycle in the school lot and that the premises were as safe as they appeared to be (see Sedita v City of New York, 8 AD3d 256 [2004]; Furgang v Club Med, 299 AD2d 162 [2002]; Goldberg v Town of Hempstead, 289 AD2d 198 [2001]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234 [2001]; Calise v City of New York, 239 AD2d 378 [1997]; Kensy v Village of Southampton, 206 AD2d 506 [1994]). The plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the parties’ remaining contentions. Smith, J.E, Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tahsin Mamati v. City of New York Parks & Recreation
123 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
O'Connor v. Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District
103 A.D.3d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Bendig v. Bethpage Union Free School District
74 A.D.3d 1263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cotty v. Town of Southampton
64 A.D.3d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Joseph v. New York Racing Ass'n
28 A.D.3d 105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 432, 785 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/restaino-v-yonkers-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2004.