Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. City of New York

82 A.D.3d 563, 918 N.Y.2d 718

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 563 (Rodriguez 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

Rodriguez v. City of New York, 82 A.D.3d 563, 918 N.Y.2d 718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[564]*564Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate since plaintiff assumed the risk that resulted in his injury (see Roberts v Boys & Girls Republic, Inc., 51 AD3d 246, 247 [2008], affd 10 NY3d 889 [2008]). The record demonstrates that plaintiff was aware that batting practice was taking place as he was standing at the open gate in an effort to call to his young son who was on the field. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the City did not have a duty to ensure that the subject gate along the . third baseline be equipped with a latch or a self-closing mechanism (see Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 331 [1981]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

[564]*564Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate since plaintiff assumed the risk that resulted in his injury (see Roberts v Boys & Girls Republic, Inc., 51 AD3d 246, 247 [2008], affd 10 NY3d 889 [2008]). The record demonstrates that plaintiff was aware that batting practice was taking place as he was standing at the open gate in an effort to call to his young son who was on the field. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the City did not have a duty to ensure that the subject gate along the . third baseline be equipped with a latch or a self-closing mechanism (see Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 331 [1981]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 563, 918 N.Y.2d 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack