Reynolds v. Jefferson Valley Racquet Club, Inc.

238 A.D.2d 493, 657 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 21, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 493 (Reynolds v. Jefferson Valley Racquet Club, Inc.) 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
Reynolds v. Jefferson Valley Racquet Club, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 493, 657 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated February 27, 1996, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon the assumption of risk doc[494]*494trine. It is well settled that individuals who voluntarily participate in sporting activities "may be held to have consented, by their participation, to those injury-causing events which are known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation” (Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439; Steward v Town of Clarkstown, 224 AD2d 405). The risks assumed by a voluntary participant include those associated with the playing field, and any open and obvious conditions on it (see, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277; Touti v City of New York, 233 AD2d 496; Siegel v City of New York, 230 AD2d 782).

The injured plaintiff was an experienced amateur basketball league player, who had played on the defendant’s basketball court at least 20 times prior to his accident. Furthermore, while the plaintiffs allege that the defective construction and design of the basketball court unreasonably increased the risks to which the injured plaintiff was exposed, the defects complained of were open and obvious. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly found that the injured plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in participating in a league game on the defendant’s basketball court (see, Touti v City of New York, supra; Siegel v City of New York, supra; Osorio v Deer Run Assocs., 231 AD2d 504). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Franco v. 1200 Master Assn., Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 8394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Sykes v. County of Erie
263 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Greenburg v. Peekskill City School District
255 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Hansman v. Village of Lynbrook
251 A.D.2d 373 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Riquelme v. City of New York
251 A.D.2d 393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Levinson v. Incorporated Village of Bayville
250 A.D.2d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Garafola v. City of New York
247 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 A.D.2d 493, 657 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-jefferson-valley-racquet-club-inc-nyappdiv-1997.