Opinion
March 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County (Travers, J.).
We find no error in Supreme Court's award of summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (hereinafter NiMo) based on General Obligations Law § 9-103. On this appeal, plaintiffs contend that because NiMo posted the entranceway to the road upon which plaintiff Tracy J. Bloom was injured with a "No Trespassing" sign, the grant of immunity to property owners provided by the statute did not apply. However, the statute is not limited to only those situations where a landowner grants permission to others to use his land. As this court has noted "[t]o the contrary, the ordinary meaning of the statutory language establishes clearly that it applies with equal force to a landowner who has not given such permission" and that protection under the statute is not to be denied "because [a] defendant caused signs to be posted prohibiting [recreational] use" (Hoffman v Joseph R. Wunderlich, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 807, 809, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 612; see, Hardy v Gullo, 118 A.D.2d 541, 542, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 601). Thus, the fact that NiMo posted its property and never gave its permission for use did not deprive it of the grant of immunity provided by General Obligations Law § 9-103.
Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Crew III, JJ., concur.