Shorten v. City of White Plains
| Decision Date | 13 February 1996 |
| Citation | 224 A.D.2d 515,637 N.Y.S.2d 791 |
| Parties | Robert SHORTEN, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains (Gregg Minkin, of counsel), for appellant.
Marvin A. Cooper, P.C., White Plains, for respondents.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and O'BRIEN, PIZZUTO and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), entered November 11, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Janet Shorten was injured while ice skating on a rink owned by the defendant, allegedly when an unknown skater pushed her down. She commenced this action against the defendant based in part on a claim that the defendant was negligent in its supervision of the skaters. At a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff testified that she had observed a group of teenage boys skating recklessly, "darting in and out" of the crowd, for about an hour prior to her accident. She said the boy who pushed her down was particularly aggressive, and she saw him nearly knock down another skater minutes before her accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff assumed the risk of her injury by continuing to skate in the presence of a known and obvious risk.
We conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion. Generally, a defendant may not be held liable for breach of its duty to supervise a recreational area where the injury is caused by "the dangers inherent in the sport so far as they are obvious and necessary" (Heard v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 66, 71, 603 N.Y.S.2d 414, 623 N.E.2d 541) and where the injury could not have been prevented by even the most intensive supervision (see, e.g., 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; Winter v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 833). Here, however, the defendant failed to establish its freedom from liability as a matter of law in light of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs that the injury was not caused by a sudden collision common to this sport but was due to the reckless actions of another skater which the defendant, by adequate supervision, could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zambrana v. City of New York
...pace, which is an ordinary risk of the sport, and a collision caused by another skater's reckless behavior (Shorten v. City of White Plains, 224 A.D.2d 515, 637 N.Y.S.2d 791). In numerous cases involving the latter situation, the rink's motion for summary judgment based on assumption of ris......
-
Calhanas v. South Amboy Roller Rink
...will guide its discretion." Berman, supra, 374 Pa.Super. at 140, 542 A.2d at 535. See also Shorten v. City of White Plains, --- A.D.2d ----, ---- - ----, 637 N.Y.S.2d 791, 791-92 (App.Div.1996) (defendant failed to establish freedom from liability as matter of law in light of plaintiff's ev......
-
Kats-Kagan v. City of N.Y.
...at 439, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49, 502 N.E.2d 964;see also Winkler v. County of Nassau, 56 A.D.3d 550, 871 N.Y.S.2d 145;Shorten v. City of White Plains, 224 A.D.2d 515, 637 N.Y.S.2d 791). Since the City failed to meet its prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaint......
-
Fader v. Town of Oyster Bay
...Inc., 33 A.D.3d 908, 826 N.Y.S.2d 300; Shamelashvili v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 631, 692 N.Y.S.2d 695; Shorten v. City of White Plains, 224 A.D.2d 515, 637 N.Y.S.2d 791; Blashka v. South Shore Skating, 193 A.D.2d 772, 773, 598 N.Y.S.2d 74). Thus, where reckless behavior that is over an......