Wollruch v. Jaekel

103 A.D.3d 524, 959 N.Y.S.2d 435
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 21, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 103 A.D.3d 524 (Wollruch v. Jaekel) 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
Wollruch v. Jaekel, 103 A.D.3d 524, 959 N.Y.S.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered on or about March 28, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff Philip Wollruch’s (plaintiff) motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Robert Jaekel’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint as against defendant Jaekel was appropriate in this action where plaintiff was injured while participating in a sponsored in-line skating event, when Jaekel lost his balance and collided with him, after another participant veered into Jaekel’s path. Although Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231 makes the provisions of that statute applicable to in-line skaters on a roadway, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue regarding whether Jaekel violated an applicable provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Moreover, plaintiff, a participant in a sponsored sporting event, assumed the risk of injury from a fall or collision with another skater, since falling is an inherent part of the sport (see e.g. Anand v Kapoor, 15 NY3d 946, 947-948 [2010]; compare Custodi v Town of Amherst, 20 NY3d 83 [2012]). Indeed, plaintiff testified that falling was “[j]ust part of skating,” and he failed to present evidence that Jaekel’s conduct was reckless or intentional. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 30773(U).]

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

Related

LITZ, BRADY v. CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Litz v. Clinton Central School District
126 A.D.3d 1306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 A.D.3d 524, 959 N.Y.S.2d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wollruch-v-jaekel-nyappdiv-2013.