Taynor v. Skate Grove at Lake Grove, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taynor v. Skate Grove at Lake Grove, Inc.

150 A.D.2d 362, 540 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493

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

DecidedMay 1, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 362 (Taynor v. Skate Grove at Lake Grove, Inc.) 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

Taynor v. Skate Grove at Lake Grove, Inc., 150 A.D.2d 362, 540 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated April 13, 1988, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and granted a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the jury verdict is reinstated, and the complaint is dismissed.

In this case, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any dangerous activity existed for a sufficient length of time as to charge the defendant with notice of such activity. Where, as here, an accident on a skating rink occurred as a result of a "sudden and abrupt action” by unknown skaters which "could not have been * * * avoided by the most intense supervision”, liability cannot be imposed on the owner (Baker v Eastman Kodak Co., 34 AD2d 886, affd 28 NY2d 636). Under these circumstances, the jury’s verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence that should not have been disturbed by the court (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

We note that the statements of the defendant’s president with respect to standard staffing practices at the rink were admissible and properly considered by the jury (see, Halloran v Virginia Chems., 41 NY2d 386). Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated April 13, 1988, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and granted a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the jury verdict is reinstated, and the complaint is dismissed.

In this case, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any dangerous activity existed for a sufficient length of time as to charge the defendant with notice of such activity. Where, as here, an accident on a skating rink occurred as a result of a "sudden and abrupt action” by unknown skaters which "could not have been * * * avoided by the most intense supervision”, liability cannot be imposed on the owner (Baker v Eastman Kodak Co., 34 AD2d 886, affd 28 NY2d 636). Under these circumstances, the jury’s verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence that should not have been disturbed by the court (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129).

We note that the statements of the defendant’s president with respect to standard staffing practices at the rink were admissible and properly considered by the jury (see, Halloran v Virginia Chems., 41 NY2d 386). Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 362, 540 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taynor-v-skate-grove-at-lake-grove-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack