Ticha v. OTB Jeans

39 A.D.3d 310, 834 N.Y.S.2d 126
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 310 (Ticha v. OTB Jeans) 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
Ticha v. OTB Jeans, 39 A.D.3d 310, 834 N.Y.S.2d 126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered May 24, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries by a videographer against sponsors of a dirt bike competition who had engaged plaintiffs employer to film the competition, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants’ president asked her to film [311]*311a rider who was standing on the ramp on the other side of the field because he was wearing defendants’ apparel, and, while doing so, she was hit by another rider who lost control of his bike. Plaintiff argues that she did not assume the risk of filming the far-off rider because he could only be filmed from the spot where she was standing and she was acting under the “inherent compulsion” of a specific instruction from her superior. The argument is contradicted by plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she could not recall whether defendants’ president told her to film the rider from the particular spot where she stood or whether she decided herself to continue standing there (see Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 279 [1985] [no basis to infer plaintiff acted under compulsion of unspoken order]). Even if plaintiff did recall an express order, there is no evidence that she complained to defendants’ president about any danger or that he directed her to continue standing where she was despite dangers known by or communicated to him (see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 659 [1989]; Bereswill v National Basketball Assn., 279 AD2d 292 [2001]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Related

Jin Chung v. Lehmann
2016 NY Slip Op 7854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Valverde v. Great Expectations, LLC
131 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Nigro v. New York Racing Ass'n
93 A.D.3d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Yetemian v. Vega
18 Misc. 3d 808 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Cohen v. Sterling Mets, L.P.
17 Misc. 3d 218 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.3d 310, 834 N.Y.S.2d 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ticha-v-otb-jeans-nyappdiv-2007.