Sammut v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sammut v. City of New York

37 A.D.3d 811, 830 N.Y.S.2d 779

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 811 (Sammut 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

Sammut v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 811, 830 N.Y.S.2d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated October 26, 2005, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

[812]*812The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff was injured while playing tennis on an outdoor court when she tripped on a crack in the tennis court surface. “The court surface is the playing field directly used in playing outdoor tennis, and the plaintiff is therefore deemed to have assumed the risk of injury” (Cevetillo v Town of Mount Pleasant, 262 AD2d 517, 518 [1999]). Further, the record reveals that the crack was open and obvious. The crack was not concealed in a way “which created a ‘dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers inherent in the sport’ ” (id., quoting Owen v R.J.S. Safety Equip., 79 NY2d 967, 970 [1992]). In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion (see id.; see also Joseph v New York Racing Assn., 28 AD3d 105, 112 [2006]). Prudenti, EJ., Krausman, Dillon and McCarthy, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated October 26, 2005, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

[812]*812The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff was injured while playing tennis on an outdoor court when she tripped on a crack in the tennis court surface. “The court surface is the playing field directly used in playing outdoor tennis, and the plaintiff is therefore deemed to have assumed the risk of injury” (Cevetillo v Town of Mount Pleasant, 262 AD2d 517, 518 [1999]). Further, the record reveals that the crack was open and obvious. The crack was not concealed in a way “which created a ‘dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers inherent in the sport’ ” (id., quoting Owen v R.J.S. Safety Equip., 79 NY2d 967, 970 [1992]). In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion (see id.; see also Joseph v New York Racing Assn., 28 AD3d 105, 112 [2006]). Prudenti, EJ., Krausman, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 811, 830 N.Y.S.2d 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sammut-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack