From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaiser v. Lakeshore Youth Soccer Assn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 30, 2004
6 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

CA 02-02092.

Decided April 30, 2004.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Nelson H. Cosgrove, J.), entered June 14, 2002. The order denied defendants' motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a personal injury action.

RODGERS COPPOLA LLP, BUFFALO (PATRICIA S. WALKER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT LAKESHORE YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION.

BROWN KELLY, LLP, BUFFALO (NICOLE B. PALMERTON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ROY GUARINO.

FELLE, STOCKER MARGULIS, WILLIAMSVILLE (WAYNE C. FELLE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Before: PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion and cross motion are granted and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, an 18-year-old goalkeeper on a girls youth traveling soccer team in defendant Lakeshore Youth Soccer Association, commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries she sustained during a soccer scrimmage when she collided with an opposing player, defendant Roy Guarino, an adult male in his late forties. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying defendants' respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The record establishes that plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries as a matter of law ( see Reilly v. Long Is. Jr. Soccer League, 216 A.D.2d 281, 282; Schiffman v. Spring, 202 A.D.2d 1007, 1008-1009; La Mountain v. South Colonie Cent. School Dist., 170 A.D.2d 914, 915; see also Shelmerdine v. Town of Guilderland, 223 A.D.2d 875, 875-876; Alvarez v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 223 A.D.2d 663; see generally Marlowe v. Rush-Henrietta Cent. School Dist., 167 A.D.2d 820, affd 78 N.Y.2d 1096 for the reasons stated below; Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 657-658). Plaintiff was an experienced and accomplished soccer player who admittedly appreciated the risk of being injured as a result of colliding with another player, which is one of the "`usual dangers that are inherent in the sport'" ( Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471,485). Defendants neither concealed nor unreasonably increased those dangers ( see id.; Benitez, 73 N.Y.2d at 658), nor did they engage in intentional or reckless misconduct toward plaintiff ( see Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439-440; see also Glazier v. Keuka Coll., 275 A.D.2d 1039; Barton v. Hapeman, 251 A.D.2d 1052).


Summaries of

Kaiser v. Lakeshore Youth Soccer Assn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 30, 2004
6 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Kaiser v. Lakeshore Youth Soccer Assn

Case Details

Full title:BRANDY KAISER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LAKESHORE YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION…

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 725