Opinion
April 26, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
Questions of material fact remain as to whether the defendant school failed to protect plaintiff from "unassumed, concealed or unreasonably increased risks" regarding the wrestling practice drills (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 658). Although plaintiff was an experienced wrestler, the record indicates that he was unfamiliar with a rule in the Athletic Association Wrestling Handbook that prohibited a student from wrestling within a weight classification more than 1 weight class above the student's; at the time of the injury the partner with whom plaintiff was practicing was 3 classifications heavier. It is not clear whether this prohibition was intended to prevent injuries from mismatched opponents during competitions with other schools or during practice sessions with teammates. If the rule applied to the latter, the team coach's failure to inform plaintiff of the rule or to prohibit such mismatched drilling would constitute negligence (supra; Parisi v Harpursville Cent. School Dist., 160 A.D.2d 1079, 1080). Moreover, a question of "inherent compulsion" is raised in that plaintiff conceded that at times he felt that he had no choice but to wrestle with the heavier teammate since he was the co-captain of the team, even though plaintiff was afraid of sustaining at least minor injuries.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.