Sigler v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sigler v. Bernstein

288 A.D.2d 113, 733 N.Y.S.2d 47, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11130

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 113 (Sigler v. Bernstein) 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

Sigler v. Bernstein, 288 A.D.2d 113, 733 N.Y.S.2d 47, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered June 20, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiffs thumb was caught in an exercise machine being used by defendant-respondent, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based upon the undisputed fact that plaintiff was talking to defendant while the latter was sitting at the exercise machine, plaintiff should have anticipated defendant’s imminent activation of the machine and appreciated the readily observable danger of leaning' his hand on the inside of the machine’s frame. In these circumstances, defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff that he was about to activate the machine (see, Blecher v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctr., 245 AD2d 687). There is no evidence that defendant operated the machine negligently. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered June 20, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiffs thumb was caught in an exercise machine being used by defendant-respondent, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Based upon the undisputed fact that plaintiff was talking to defendant while the latter was sitting at the exercise machine, plaintiff should have anticipated defendant’s imminent activation of the machine and appreciated the readily observable danger of leaning' his hand on the inside of the machine’s frame. In these circumstances, defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff that he was about to activate the machine (see, Blecher v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctr., 245 AD2d 687). There is no evidence that defendant operated the machine negligently. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 113, 733 N.Y.S.2d 47, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sigler-v-bernstein-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack