From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 1994
201 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Danica Kleiner was injured in a fall after an abrupt and sudden collision in which another skater ran into her while she was roller skating at the defendant's rink. Such collisions between skaters are a common occurrence (see, Lopez v Skate Key, 174 A.D.2d 534). Thus, she is deemed to have assumed the risk of injury resulting therefrom (see, Taynor v. Skate Grove, 150 A.D.2d 362; Baker v. Eastman Kodak Co., 34 A.D.2d 886, affd 28 N.Y.2d 636). Moreover, in opposing the defendant's motion, the plaintiffs failed to establish that any amount of supervision by the defendant would have prevented this random collision (see, Bua v. South Shore Skating, 193 A.D.2d 774). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 7, 1994
201 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Kleiner v. Commack Roller Rink

Case Details

Full title:DANICA KLEINER et al., Appellants, v. COMMACK ROLLER RINK, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 7, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 142

Citing Cases

ZAYAT STABLES, LLC v. NYRA, INC.

The fact that defendant was negligent is not dispositive in an action in which the defendant asserts a…

Zambrana v. City of New York

However, neither her complaint nor any other proof demonstrates a prevailing level of risk on defendants'…