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

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 393 (Riquelme v. City of New York) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 393, 674 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riquelme-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack