Colucci v. Nansen Park, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1996
• Citation: 226 A.D.2d 336,640 N.Y.S.2d 578
• Parties: John COLUCCI, et al., Appellants, v. NANSEN PARK, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Rudy's Catering Service, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 578

640 N.Y.S.2d 578

226 A.D.2d 336

John COLUCCI, et al., Appellants, v.NANSEN PARK, INC., et al., Defendants-RespondentsRudy's Catering Service, DefendantThird-Party Plaintiff-RespondentFireman's Fund Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 1, 1996.

Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, Mineola (Jonathan A. Dachs, on the brief), for appellants.

Meiselman, Boland, Reilly & Fugazzi, Mineola (David T. Reilly and Harold Fugazzi, of counsel), for defendants-respondentsNansen Park, Inc., Nansen Properties, Inc., and Nansen Lodge, Sons of Norway.

Brea Stone, P.C., Jamaica Estates (Richard Paul Stone, of counsel), for defendantthird-partyplaintiff-respondent.

Lustig & Brown, New York City(Ellen August of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before BALLETTA, J.P., and JOY, KRAUSMAN and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Lonschein, J.), dated November 23, 1994, which, inter alia, granted the respective motions of the respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffJohn Colucci was injured when, as he was running after a fly ball in left field during an amateur softball game, he ran into a barrier separating the playing field from a gravel parking lot.The barrier was a white telephone pole about 15 feet long and lying horizontally about two feet off of the ground.In their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the respondents produced evidence that the barrier was not concealed.Although the plaintiffJohn Colucci did not see the barrier before running into it, he did not present evidence that the barrier was concealed.The Supreme Court, accordingly, granted the respondents' respective motions for summary judgment and we affirm.

Participants in sporting events may be held to have consented to injury-causing events which are the known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable risks of their participation (see, Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 502 N.E.2d 964).The risks of the event include any obvious condition involved in the construction of the field (see, Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 277, ...