From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brookstone v. State of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 2009
64 A.D.3d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 505742.

July 16, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Schaewe, J.), entered January 11, 2008, upon a decision of the court following a bifurcated trial in favor of defendant on the issue of liability.

Flink Smith, L.L.C., Latham (Edward B. Flink of counsel), for appellants.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Michael S. Buskus of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur; Mercure, J., not taking part.


Claimant Mitchell S. Brookstone (hereinafter claimant) was injured while playing a "pick-up" game of basketball on an out-door asphalt court at Gilbert Lake State Park in Otsego County when, after jumping for a ball headed out of bounds, he landed on an uneven edge of the court. Thereafter, claimant and his wife, derivatively, commenced this action alleging, among other things, that defendant was negligent in the construction and maintenance of the basketball court. Following a bifurcated trial, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim, finding that claimant assumed the risks inherent in playing basketball on an outdoor court. Claimants appeal.

A voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity consents to the inherent risks arising out of such activity, including "those risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it" ( Welch v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 272 AD2d 469, 469; see Lincoln v Canastota Cent. School Dist., 53 AD3d 851, 852). Notably, the Court of Appeals has determined that an irregular playing surface is an inherent risk of outdoor basketball ( see Sykes v County of Erie, 94 NY2d 912, 913; Lincoln v Canastota Cent. School Dist., 53 AD3d at 852). Here, contrary to claimants' contention, the slightly uneven surface at the edge of the basketball court was an open and obvious risk and did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition ( cf. Clark v State of New York, 245 AD2d 413). Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Brookstone v. State of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 16, 2009
64 A.D.3d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Brookstone v. State of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:MITCHELL S. BROOKSTONE et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Jul 16, 2009

Citations

64 A.D.3d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 5895
883 N.Y.S.2d 347

Citing Cases

McGrath v. Shenendehowa

Plaintiff now appeals. "A person who voluntarily participates in a sport or recreational activity assumes the…

Graham v. State

Other witnesses credibly testified that the cracks in the court surface were minor in nature (see Clark at…