Rossman v. RCPI Landmark Properties, L.L.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rossman v. RCPI Landmark Properties, L.L.C.

41 A.D.3d 318, 838 N.Y.S.2d 70

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 318 (Rossman v. RCPI Landmark Properties, L.L.C.) 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

Rossman v. RCPI Landmark Properties, L.L.C., 41 A.D.3d 318, 838 N.Y.S.2d 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered April 11, 2006, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that she was caused to fall and suffer injuries when, while skating at the Rockefeller Center skating rink, she struck a bump on the ice. She testified that when she first started skating, the surface of the ice was “smooth,” but that, after skating for approximately an hour and a half, some 15 minutes before her fall, she observed that the skating surface was deteriorating, and there were ice chips, bumps, and wet spots on the ice. She nonetheless continued to skate until her fall. Under these circumstances plaintiff assumed the complained-of risk posed by the condition of the ice (see Saravia v Makkos of Brooklyn, 264 AD2d 576 [1999]); the ice was “as safe as it appeared to [be]” (Nunez v Recreation Rooms & Settlement, 229 AD2d 359, 360 [1996]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered April 11, 2006, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims that she was caused to fall and suffer injuries when, while skating at the Rockefeller Center skating rink, she struck a bump on the ice. She testified that when she first started skating, the surface of the ice was “smooth,” but that, after skating for approximately an hour and a half, some 15 minutes before her fall, she observed that the skating surface was deteriorating, and there were ice chips, bumps, and wet spots on the ice. She nonetheless continued to skate until her fall. Under these circumstances plaintiff assumed the complained-of risk posed by the condition of the ice (see Saravia v Makkos of Brooklyn, 264 AD2d 576 [1999]); the ice was “as safe as it appeared to [be]” (Nunez v Recreation Rooms & Settlement, 229 AD2d 359, 360 [1996]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 318, 838 N.Y.S.2d 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rossman-v-rcpi-landmark-properties-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack