Summary
In Ziegelmeyer, the Appellate Division, Third Department, likewise noted that the record did not establish that the safety pads surrounding the rink "were either damaged or defective," and it was demonstrated that "falling speedskaters often strike the pads in such a fashion as to cause the pads to move out of position on impact" (Ziegelmeyer v United States Olympic Comm., 28 AD3d 1019, 1020, aff'd 7 NY3d 893)
Summary of this case from Palladino v. Lindenhurst Union Free SchoolOpinion
Decided November 21, 2006.
APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered April 27, 2006. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Greene County (Thomas J. Spargo, J.), which had granted defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Ziegelmeyer v. United States Olympic Comm., 28 AD3d 1019, affirmed.
Harris Beach PLLC, Albany (A. Vincent Buzzard, Mark J. McCarthy and Kevin T. Bezio of counsel), for appellant.
Roemer Wallens Mineaux LLP, Albany ( Matthew J. Kelly of counsel), for United States Olympic Committee, respondent.
Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Moloney Laird, PC, Albany ( Leah W. Casey of counsel), for United States Speedskating and another, respondents.
Before: Chief Judge KAYEand Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and PIGOTT.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, a short-track Olympic speedskater, was injured when she fell on the ice during practice and hit the boards surrounding the rink. Although safety pads had been placed on the boards, plaintiff fell in such a way that her feet lifted the pads, causing her hip to strike the boards directly. Because plaintiff was aware of the exact manner in which the safety pads had been set up on the day of her accident, the Appellate Division correctly held that plaintiff had assumed the risk of her injuries, and properly affirmed the Supreme Court order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Morgan v. State of New York, 90 NY2d 471; see also Trevett v. City of Little Falls, 6 NY3d 884).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.