Suarez v. HBQVB Athletic Ass'n

303 A.D.2d 396, 755 N.Y.S.2d 877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 3, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 396 (Suarez v. HBQVB Athletic Ass'n) 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
Suarez v. HBQVB Athletic Ass'n, 303 A.D.2d 396, 755 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered September 21, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[397]*397Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained at her daughter’s softball game when she was struck by a foul ball while standing in an unprotected area in foul territory along the third base line. Even if the defendant could be considered a proprietor of the field who owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to spectators (see Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 329 [1981]; Stern v Madison Sq. Garden Corp., 226 AD2d 444, 445 [1996]), that duty was satisfied as the ball field had a fenced backstop behind home plate which provided an adequate protective area for spectators (see Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., supra at 331; Stern v Madison Sq. Garden Corp., supra at 445; Lynch v Board of Educ. for Oceanside School Dist., 225 AD2d 741 [1996]; Clark v Goshen Sunday Morning Softball League, 122 AD2d 769 [1986]). In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding the adequacy of the screened area or her ability to avail herself of such area (see Clapman v City of New York, 63 NY2d 669 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rosenfeld v. Hudson Valley Stadium Corp.
65 A.D.3d 1117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
LaRocca v. Pleasant Valley Little League
15 A.D.3d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
303 A.D.2d 396, 755 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suarez-v-hbqvb-athletic-assn-nyappdiv-2003.