Sykes v. County of Erie

263 A.D.2d 947, 695 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 9, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 947 (Sykes v. County of Erie) 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
Sykes v. County of Erie, 263 A.D.2d 947, 695 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinions

—Order reversed on the law without [948]*948costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for a knee injury sustained by Lester Sykes, Jr. (plaintiff) while playing basketball on an outdoor court owned by defendant. Plaintiff was injured when he stepped into a recessed drain near the free throw line.

Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff assumed those risks inherent in playing on the outdoor basketball court, including those risks associated with the construction of the court and its open and obvious condition (see, Sheridan v City of New York, 261 AD2d 528; Retian v City of New York, 259 AD2d 684; Paone v County of Suffolk, 251 AD2d 563; Walner v City of New York, 243 AD2d 629; Reynolds v Jefferson Val. Racquet Club, 238 AD2d 493; McKey v City of New York, 234 AD2d 114, 115; Steward v Town of Clarkstown, 224 AD2d 405, 406, lv denied 88 NY2d 815; cf., Worrell v New York City Hous. Auth., 255 AD2d 438; Cronson v Town of N. Hempstead, 245 AD2d 331). Here, the parties’ submissions establish that the recessed drain on the court was “clearly visible” (Paone v County of Suffolk, supra, at 564; see, Brown v City of New York, 251 AD2d 361), and thus plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from stepping into it (see, Paone v County of Suffolk, supra, at 564; Brown v City of New York, supra; McKey v City of New York, supra, at 115; Steward v Town of Clarkstown, supra, at 406; see also, Touti v City of New York, 233 AD2d 496).

All concur except Pine and Callahan, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following Memorandum.

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

Related

Goldberg v. Town of Hempstead
289 A.D.2d 198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 A.D.2d 947, 695 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sykes-v-county-of-erie-nyappdiv-1999.