From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Green v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 15, 1999
263 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

In Green v. City of New York, 263 A.D.2d 385, 693 N.Y.S.2d 43, the First Department determined that "since plaintiff voluntarily chose to play basketball on a court surface whose faulty condition was perfectly obvious, his injury, as a matter of law, cannot be held to be due to a violation of defendants' duty to exercise ordinary, reasonable care" (id. at 385, 693 N.Y.S.2d 43).

Summary of this case from Philius v. City of N.Y.

Opinion

July 15, 1999.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 21, 1998, which granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer as moot, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

PRESENT: Ellerin, P.J., Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.


On July 3, 1994, plaintiff, an inmate at a city correctional facility, tripped and fell during the course of a basketball game, injuring his knee. The evidence shows that plaintiff fell on an open and obvious defect on the basketball court, of which he was aware.

It is well established that "by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation" ( Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484). This encompasses those risks that are associated with the construction of the playing field and any open and obvious defects on it ( Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 277).

In this case, since plaintiff voluntarily chose to play basketball on a court surface whose faulty condition was perfectly obvious, his injury, as a matter of law, cannot be held to be due to a violation of defendants' duty to exercise ordinary, reasonable care ( McKey v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 114; see also, Retian v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 684; Sheridan v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 528; Paone v. County of Suffolk, 251 A.D.2d 563; Brown v. City of New York, 251 A.D.2d 361; compare, Warren v. Town of Hempstead, 246 A.D.2d 536).


Summaries of

Green v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 15, 1999
263 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

In Green v. City of New York, 263 A.D.2d 385, 693 N.Y.S.2d 43, the First Department determined that "since plaintiff voluntarily chose to play basketball on a court surface whose faulty condition was perfectly obvious, his injury, as a matter of law, cannot be held to be due to a violation of defendants' duty to exercise ordinary, reasonable care" (id. at 385, 693 N.Y.S.2d 43).

Summary of this case from Philius v. City of N.Y.

In Green, we found that no question of fact exists because the "faulty condition was perfectly obvious", as it was in McKey v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 114 [a six-inch hole in the surface of an outside basketball court, clearly visible under the basket].

Summary of this case from Marcano v. the City of N.Y
Case details for

Green v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH GREEN, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jul 15, 1999

Citations

263 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 43

Citing Cases

Scoma v. U.S.

The same has been held to be true with respect to indoor basketball. InGreeny, City of New York, 693 N.Y.S.2d…

Philius v. City of N.Y.

In LaSalvia v. City of New York , 305 A.D.2d 267, 759 N.Y.S.2d 79, the First Department held that, where the…