From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Negin v. New York Aquarium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 2004
4 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05927.

Decided February 23, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated May 14, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Jacobowitz, Garfinkel Lesman, New York, N.Y. (Fiedelman McGaw [Andrew Zajac] of counsel), for appellants.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, STEPHEN G. CRANE and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

On December 3, 1992, the 13-year-old plaintiff Kristopher Negin went on a class field trip to the New York Aquarium where he was allegedly injured while attempting to jump over a bright yellow chain. The chain was about 2 1/2 to 3 feet above the ground, and it served to prevent entry into a building. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that triable issues of fact existed. We disagree.

The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the chain was not defective and that the risks of jumping over it were readily perceivable by the infant plaintiff. Thus, they had no duty to warn the infant plaintiff of the chain's condition or the risks of his own behavior ( see Gibbons v. Lido Point Lookout Fire Dist., 293 A.D.2d 646; Garry v. Rockville Ctr. Union Free School Dist., 272 A.D.2d 437, 438; Plessias v. Scalia Home for Funerals, 271 A.D.2d 423; Rovegno v. Church of the Assumption, 268 A.D.2d 576; Reuscher v. Pergament Home Ctrs., 247 A.D.2d 603; Moran v. County of Dutchess, 237 A.D.2d 266; Kurshals v. Connetquot Cent. School Dist., 227 A.D.2d 593, 594; Jackson v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 214 A.D.2d 650, 651; cf. Cupo v. Karfunkel, 1 A.D.3d 48). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Negin v. New York Aquarium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 23, 2004
4 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Negin v. New York Aquarium

Case Details

Full title:KRISTOPHER NEGIN, ETC., ET AL., respondents, v. NEW YORK AQUARIUM, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 23, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 716

Citing Cases

Rivas-Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Society

Here, the defendant submitted evidence sufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law…

Ledden v. The Gramercy Park Block Ass'n

Defendant Block Association cited to the similar case Negin v New York Aquarium, 4 A.D.3d 511 [2d Dept…