( Iannotti v. Consol. Rail Corp. , 74 N.Y.2d at 46 ). In Diaz v. New York City Housing Auth. , 159 Misc 2d 72 [Sup. Ct. Kings County 1993], the court found that GOL ยง 9-103 did not apply to bicycle riding on an asphalt walkway or path leading from a public sidewalk to a housing complex. The court determined that the area was not the sort of premises that "the Legislature would have envisioned as being opened up to the public for recreational activities such as bicycle riding as a result of inducement offered by the statute."
Plaintiff alleged that the sidewalk area where he fell was not designated by defendant for bike riding and was situated along a busy campus roadway near the front entrance of an academic building containing classrooms and offices. Such a property is not appropriate for public use in pursuing bicycle riding as a recreational activity (see Sasso, 130 A.D.3d at 1547-1548; see also F.M. v North Merrick Union Free Sch. Dist., 68 Misc.3d 1209 [A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50895[U], *4 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2020]; Diaz v New York City Hous. Auth., 159 Misc.2d 72, 75 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1993]). Inasmuch as the recreational use statute does not apply here, the court erred in granting the motion.