Walcott v. Lindenhurst Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walcott v. Lindenhurst Union Free School District

243 A.D.2d 558, 662 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9792

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 558 (Walcott v. Lindenhurst Union Free School District) 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

Walcott v. Lindenhurst Union Free School District, 243 A.D.2d 558, 662 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Lindenhurst Union Free School District appeals from an order of the [559]*559Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 19, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff Thomas Walcott was injured during a high school wrestling match when his opponent executed a “take-down” move. By voluntarily participating in the match, the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury inherent in the sport (see, Chimerine v World Champion John Chung Tae Kwon Do Inst., 90 NY2d 471; Edelson v Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 219 AD2d 614). There is no evidence that the risk of injury was concealed or unreasonably increased, or that the coach compelled the plaintiff to disregard a risk he would not have otherwise assumed (see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658-659). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, 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 Lindenhurst Union Free School District appeals from an order of the [559]*559Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 19, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff Thomas Walcott was injured during a high school wrestling match when his opponent executed a “take-down” move. By voluntarily participating in the match, the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury inherent in the sport (see, Chimerine v World Champion John Chung Tae Kwon Do Inst., 90 NY2d 471; Edelson v Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 219 AD2d 614). There is no evidence that the risk of injury was concealed or unreasonably increased, or that the coach compelled the plaintiff to disregard a risk he would not have otherwise assumed (see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658-659). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 558, 662 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walcott-v-lindenhurst-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack