Riquelme v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riquelme v. City of New York

251 A.D.2d 393, 674 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6599

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 8, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in playing football on the concrete schoolyard where he allegedly sustained his injuries, including those conditions associated with the construction of the schoolyard and any open and obvious conditions on it (see, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277; Garafola v City of New York, 247 AD2d 581; Walner v City of New York, 243 AD2d 629; Reynolds v Jefferson Val. Racquet Club, 238 AD2d 493; McDaniels v City of New York, 234 AD2d 432; Touti v City of New York, 233 AD2d 496). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 8, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in playing football on the concrete schoolyard where he allegedly sustained his injuries, including those conditions associated with the construction of the schoolyard and any open and obvious conditions on it (see, Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277; Garafola v City of New York, 247 AD2d 581; Walner v City of New York, 243 AD2d 629; Reynolds v Jefferson Val. Racquet Club, 238 AD2d 493; McDaniels v City of New York, 234 AD2d 432; Touti v City of New York, 233 AD2d 496). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Riquelme v. City of New York, 251 A.D.2d 393, 674 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 393 (Riquelme v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related