Zielinski v. Farace

291 A.D.2d 910, 737 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1023
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 910 (Zielinski v. Farace) 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
Zielinski v. Farace, 291 A.D.2d 910, 737 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joslin, J.), entered February 13, 2001, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Joseph D. Farace for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the motion of defendant Joseph D. Farace and dismissing the complaint against him and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a collision with Joseph D. [911]*911Farace (defendant) while they were skiing. Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. “[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” (Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484). The risk of injury caused by another skier is an inherent risk of downhill skiing (see, Kaufman v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 240 AD2d 371, 372, lv denied 91 NY2d 805; Atwell v State of New York, 229 AD2d 849, 850); defendant submitted proof establishing that he did not engage in any “reckless, intentional or other risk-enhancing conduct not inherent in the activity” of downhill skiing that caused or contributed to the accident (Kaufman v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, supra at 372; see generally, Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 441); and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Sopkovich v. Smith
2018 NY Slip Op 6342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
MOORE, MARK v. HOFFMAN, RICHARD E.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Moore v. Hoffman
114 A.D.3d 1265 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
THORNTON, DEBORAH A. v. RICKNER, ERIC
94 A.D.3d 1504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Mayer v. Gulmi
64 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Clarke v. Peek 'N Peak Recreation, Inc.
551 F. Supp. 2d 159 (W.D. New York, 2008)
DeAngelis v. Protopopescu
37 A.D.3d 1178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
DeMasi v. Rogers
34 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Martin v. Fiutko
27 A.D.3d 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Gern v. Basta
26 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Lamprecht v. Rhinehardt
8 A.D.3d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Keicher v. Town of Hamburg
291 A.D.2d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 A.D.2d 910, 737 N.Y.S.2d 199, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zielinski-v-farace-nyappdiv-2002.