Tiedemann v. Notre Dame Academy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tiedemann v. Notre Dame Academy

227 A.D.2d 545, 643 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322

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

DecidedMay 20, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 545 (Tiedemann v. Notre Dame Academy) 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

Tiedemann v. Notre Dame Academy, 227 A.D.2d 545, 643 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered February 22, 1995, which granted the motion of St. Peter’s High School For Girls for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates that the plaintiff, an experienced softball player, assumed the risk of the injury which she sustained upon voluntarily participating in a league game (see, Reilly v Long Is. Jr. Soccer League, 216 AD2d 281; Greenberg v North Shore Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 209 AD2d 669; cf., Brown v City of Peekskill, 212 AD2d 658; Weithofer v Unique Racquetball & Health Clubs, 211 AD2d 783; Cassese v Ramapo Ice Rinks, 208 AD2d 488; see also, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Mc-Ginity, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered February 22, 1995, which granted the motion of St. Peter’s High School For Girls for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates that the plaintiff, an experienced softball player, assumed the risk of the injury which she sustained upon voluntarily participating in a league game (see, Reilly v Long Is. Jr. Soccer League, 216 AD2d 281; Greenberg v North Shore Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 209 AD2d 669; cf., Brown v City of Peekskill, 212 AD2d 658; Weithofer v Unique Racquetball & Health Clubs, 211 AD2d 783; Cassese v Ramapo Ice Rinks, 208 AD2d 488; see also, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 545, 643 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiedemann-v-notre-dame-academy-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack