Rodriguez v. City of New York

82 A.D.3d 563, 918 N.Y.2d 718
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

82 A.D.3d 563 (Rodriguez v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bukowski v. Clarkson University
86 A.D.3d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)