Rosen v. New York Zoological Society

281 A.D.2d 238, 722 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2432
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 238 (Rosen v. New York Zoological Society) 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
Rosen v. New York Zoological Society, 281 A.D.2d 238, 722 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered October 24, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff, a volunteer worker, should have been aware that she might have “sunk in and slipped” while attempting to negotiate the steep-sloped, muddy riverbank on foot, especially given the fact that defendant had fenced off the area and had refused to allow child volunteers into it. Plaintiff’s contention that her injury was caused by a latent or concealed condition and that defendant thus breached its duty to take reasonable measures to neutralize that condition (see, Walter v State of New York, 185 AD2d 536, 538) is without merit. Such terrain is a natural geographical phenomenon that would foreseeably have soft or uneven spots and, therefore, would not engender such duty on the part of defendant (see, Coote v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 234 AD2d 907, 909). Where the natural condition of the terrain is plainly and obviously dangerous, a defendant landowner owes no duty to warn of or to prevent [239]*239such danger (see, Tarricone v State of New York, 175 AD2d 308, 309, lv denied 78 NY2d 862; Rolfe v Galt, 102 AD2d 983, 984, lv denied sub nom. Rolfe v Hollenbeck, 63 NY2d 604; Diven v Village of Hastings-On-Hudson, 156 AD2d 538, 539). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Melendez v. City of New York
76 A.D.2d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Fox v. Central Park Boathouse, LLC
71 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cohen v. State
50 A.D.3d 1234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Cramer v. County of Erie
23 A.D.3d 1145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Tulovic v. Chase Manhattan Bank
309 A.D.2d 923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rogers v. Spirit Cruises, Inc.
195 Misc. 2d 335 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Nardi v. Crowley Marine Associates, Inc.
292 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D.2d 238, 722 N.Y.S.2d 31, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-new-york-zoological-society-nyappdiv-2001.