Valle v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valle v. City of New York

247 A.D.2d 534, 668 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1492

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 534 (Valle v. City of New York) 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

Valle v. City of New York, 247 A.D.2d 534, 668 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated January 29, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Shortly after midnight on July 5, 1990, the plaintiff climbed through a hole in the fence surrounding the pool at Astoria Park in Queens. At that time, the pool was closed. The plaintiff,, who was 16 years old at the time, had never been diving or swimming before, and had never been to the pool at Astoria Park. The plaintiff ran to the edge of the pool and, although it was dark, dove in head first without giving any thought to the depth of the water, which was approximately six inches. The plaintiff sustained multiple spinal injuries, and ultimately commenced this action against the City of New York.

The Supreme Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and we now reverse.

[535]*535Under the circumstances of this case, the record establishes that the plaintiffs reckless conduct was the sole legal cause of his injuries (see, Howard v Poseidon Pools, 72 NY2d 972; Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated January 29, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Shortly after midnight on July 5, 1990, the plaintiff climbed through a hole in the fence surrounding the pool at Astoria Park in Queens. At that time, the pool was closed. The plaintiff,, who was 16 years old at the time, had never been diving or swimming before, and had never been to the pool at Astoria Park. The plaintiff ran to the edge of the pool and, although it was dark, dove in head first without giving any thought to the depth of the water, which was approximately six inches. The plaintiff sustained multiple spinal injuries, and ultimately commenced this action against the City of New York.

The Supreme Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and we now reverse.

[535]*535Under the circumstances of this case, the record establishes that the plaintiffs reckless conduct was the sole legal cause of his injuries (see, Howard v Poseidon Pools, 72 NY2d 972; Boltax v Joy Day Camp, 67 NY2d 617).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 534, 668 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valle-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack