Schoneboom v. Grill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schoneboom v. Grill

67 A.D.3d 509, 888 N.Y.S.2d 54

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 509 (Schoneboom v. Grill) 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

Schoneboom v. Grill, 67 A.D.3d 509, 888 N.Y.S.2d 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on February 26, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk from seeking damages for the injuries plaintiff David Schoneboom suffered when an identified person in a group of slam dancers slammed into him. After observing the open and obvious slam dancing from a safe vantage point, and fully appreciating the risk of colliding with a slam dancer, plaintiff nonetheless elected to place himself in close proximity to that activity, thereby assuming the risk that resulted in his injuries (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 437-439 [1986]; Roberts v Boys & Girls Republic, Inc., 51 AD3d 246, 247-248 [2008], affd 10 NY3d 889 [2008]).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [See 2009 NY Slip Op 30419(D).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on February 26, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk from seeking damages for the injuries plaintiff David Schoneboom suffered when an identified person in a group of slam dancers slammed into him. After observing the open and obvious slam dancing from a safe vantage point, and fully appreciating the risk of colliding with a slam dancer, plaintiff nonetheless elected to place himself in close proximity to that activity, thereby assuming the risk that resulted in his injuries (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 437-439 [1986]; Roberts v Boys & Girls Republic, Inc., 51 AD3d 246, 247-248 [2008], affd 10 NY3d 889 [2008]).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [See 2009 NY Slip Op 30419(D).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 509, 888 N.Y.S.2d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoneboom-v-grill-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack