Vanborkulo v. Keller's Motor Sports, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 16 March 2010
• Citation: 897 N.Y.S.2d 478,71 A.D.3d 874
• Parties: Victor N. VANBORKULO, respondent, v. KELLER's MOTOR SPORTS, LTD., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

897 N.Y.S.2d 478 71 A.D.3d 874 Victor N. VANBORKULO, respondent, v. KELLER's MOTOR SPORTS, LTD., et al., appellants, et al., defendants. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. March 16, 2010.

Blumberg & Bongermino, Central Islip, N.Y. (Ernest M. Bongermino of counsel), for appellants Keller's Motor Sports, Ltd., Matt Cordiner, and Richard Keller.

Thomas P. Valet, Holbrook, N.Y., for appellant Extreme Karting, Inc., and John B. Dawson, Jr., P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Richard B. Schwartz of counsel), for appellant Joan Cressi (one brief filed).

David W. McCarthy, Huntington, N.Y. (Margaret DeVivo of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, RUTH C. BALKIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Keller's Motor Sports, Ltd., Matt Cordiner, andRichard Keller appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated October 14, 2008, as denied those branches of the motion of those defendants and Keller's Korners, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Keller's Motor Sports, Ltd., Matt Cordiner, and Richard Keller, the defendant Extreme Karting, Inc., separately appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofaras asserted against it, and the defendant Joan Cressi appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of her motion, made jointly with the defendant Long Island Kart Association, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondent, payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff was riding a go-kart at an oval track for recreational purposes when his go-kart turned over, causing him to sustain personal injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the accident occurred when a go-kart operated by the defendant Matt Cordiner rear-ended his go-kart as the plaintiff was negotiating the curved portion of the track. Some go-karts had the capacity to move faster than others. The go-karts were supposed to be grouped so that only vehicles which traveled at a similar rate of speed would be on the track at the same time. The plaintiff alleged that Cordiner was riding a go-kart capable of travelling at a speed greater that the group of...