Viniar v. Town of Oyster Bay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Viniar v. Town of Oyster Bay

197 A.D.2d 683, 603 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9947

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 683 (Viniar v. Town of Oyster Bay) 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

Viniar v. Town of Oyster Bay, 197 A.D.2d 683, 603 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated June 25, 1991, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

While it is generally true that negligence cases are rarely subject to summary judgment treatment (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361), we find that the plaintiff Nava Viniar assumed the risk of becoming injured through contact with the tennis net when she voluntarily engaged in a game of tennis upon the defendant’s recreational premises. Moreover, it cannot reasonably be inferred that the defendant breached any duty to her (see, Robinson v Town of Babylon, 166 AD2d 434; Gallagher v Town of N. Hempstead, 144 AD2d 637). The plaintiffs did not raise any triable issues of fact. Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated June 25, 1991, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

While it is generally true that negligence cases are rarely subject to summary judgment treatment (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361), we find that the plaintiff Nava Viniar assumed the risk of becoming injured through contact with the tennis net when she voluntarily engaged in a game of tennis upon the defendant’s recreational premises. Moreover, it cannot reasonably be inferred that the defendant breached any duty to her (see, Robinson v Town of Babylon, 166 AD2d 434; Gallagher v Town of N. Hempstead, 144 AD2d 637). The plaintiffs did not raise any triable issues of fact. Thus, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 683, 603 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viniar-v-town-of-oyster-bay-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack