Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink
| Decision Date | 07 February 1994 |
| Citation | 201 A.D.2d 462,607 N.Y.S.2d 142 |
| Parties | Danica KLEINER, et al., Appellants, v. COMMACK ROLLER RINK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sawyer, Davis, Halpern & Rosenstock, Garden City (Adam C. DeMetri, of counsel), for appellants.
Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile, Devine & McElhenny, Merrick (Thomas P. Lalor, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, ALTMAN and HART, 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, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated January 23, 1992, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Danica Kleiner was injured in a fall after an abrupt and sudden collision in which another skater ran into her while she was roller skating at the defendant's rink. Such collisions between skaters are a common occurrence (see, Lopez v. Skate Key, 174 A.D.2d 534, 571 N.Y.S.2d 716). Thus, she is deemed to have assumed the risk of injury resulting therefrom (see, Taynor v. Skate Grove at Lake Grove, Inc., 150 A.D.2d 362, 540 N.Y.S.2d 883; Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co., 34 A.D.2d 886, 312 N.Y.S.2d 449, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 636, 320 N.Y.S.2d 247, 269 N.E.2d 36). Moreover, in opposing the defendant's motion, the plaintiffs failed to establish that any amount of supervision by the defendant would have prevented this random collision (see, Bua v. South Shore Skating, 193 A.D.2d 774, 598 N.Y.S.2d 75). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zambrana v. City of New York
...between skaters, such as the one sustained here, are a common occurrence and a risk which all skaters assume (Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink, 201 A.D.2d 462, 607 N.Y.S.2d 142; Lopez v. Skate Key, 174 A.D.2d 534, 571 N.Y.S.2d 716). This was an impact the guards could not have prevented, even......
- Kozinevich v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.
-
Kats-Kagan v. City of N.Y.
...Serv. Corp., 289 A.D.2d 519, 735 N.Y.S.2d 616;Vega v. County of Westchester, 282 A.D.2d 738, 724 N.Y.S.2d 72; Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink, 201 A.D.2d 462, 607 N.Y.S.2d 142), “ participants do not consent to acts which are reckless or intentional” ( Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d at 439, 510......
-
Rueckert v. Cohen
...an inherent risk of the activity ( see Bleyer v. Recreational Mgt. Serv. Corp., 289 A.D.2d 519, 735 N.Y.S.2d 616;Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink, 201 A.D.2d 462, 607 N.Y.S.2d 142). The defendant established, prima facie, that her conduct was not intentional or reckless but, rather, constitut......