Sykes v. County of Erie

New York Court of Appeals

Sykes v. County of Erie

728 N.E.2d 973, 94 N.Y.2d 912, 707 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 505

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by313 cases

This text of 728 N.E.2d 973 (Sykes v. County of Erie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sykes v. County of Erie, 728 N.E.2d 973, 94 N.Y.2d 912, 707 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 505 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff injured his knee when he stepped into a recessed drain near the free throw line while playing basketball on an outdoor court owned by defendant. Although the doctrine of assumption of risk does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises, there is no evidence that the drain was defective or improperly maintained. In dismissing the complaint, the Appellate Division majority correctly held that the risks of playing upon an irregular surface are inherent in outdoor basketball activities (such as occurred here) and that the condition of the court was open and obvious. Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk of the injury (see, Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff injured his knee when he stepped into a recessed drain near the free throw line while playing basketball on an outdoor court owned by defendant. Although the doctrine of assumption of risk does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises, there is no evidence that the drain was defective or improperly maintained. In dismissing the complaint, the Appellate Division majority correctly held that the risks of playing upon an irregular surface are inherent in outdoor basketball activities (such as occurred here) and that the condition of the court was open and obvious. Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk of the injury (see, Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 N.E.2d 973, 94 N.Y.2d 912, 707 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sykes-v-county-of-erie-ny-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack