From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chittick v. USA Cycling, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 23, 2008
54 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

September 23, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered October 3, 2007, which granted the motion of defendant USA Cycling, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Tom, J.P., Williams, McGuire and Freedman, JJ.


The record establishes that USA Cycling merely sanctioned, i.e., lent its name to, the bicycle race during which plaintiff spectators were struck by the three-wheel scooter operating as the rear pace vehicle. Since it had no control over the race, USA Cycling had no duty to prevent any negligence involved therein ( see e.g. Mauro v City of Yonkers, 282 AD2d 720). The fact that USA Cycling provided its rule book to defendant Van Dunk, the organizer of the race, did not impose a duty upon USA Cycling to enforce any of the rules therein ( see id.). Nor does the fact raise an inference as to the existence of a principal-agency relationship between USA Cycling and Van Dunk.


Summaries of

Chittick v. USA Cycling, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 23, 2008
54 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Chittick v. USA Cycling, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ALEJANDRO CHITTICK et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USA CYCLING…

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

Date published: Sep 23, 2008

Citations

54 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
863 N.Y.S.2d 679

Citing Cases

Rivera v. USA Cycling, Inc.

USA Cycling relies upon out-of-jurisdiction cases in which sports governing bodies were found not to owe a…

Levine v. U.S. Cycling, Inc.

This Court finds that while USA Cycling sanctioned the race of June 14, 2014, the plaintiff has not…