From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Broadway Pilates, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2008
52 A.D.3d 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 3806, 3806A.

June 3, 2008.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 7, 2007, dismissing the complaint, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 10, 2007, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforementioned order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Bruce J. Gitlin, P.C., New York (Bruce J. Gitlin of counsel), for appellant.

Gordon Silber, P.C., New York (William L. Hahn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Gonzalez, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.


Defendant met its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( Papadopoulos v Gardner's Vil., 198 AD2d 216). By voluntarily participating in a fitness and exercise program at defendant's studio for five years before her accident, including use of the equipment on which she was injured, plaintiff consented to and was aware of the risks commonly associated with this activity ( Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471). Defendant's loss of plaintiff's client index card was not crucial to her case, so spoliation sanctions were not appropriate ( Bach v City of New York, 33 AD3d 544).

[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 30618(U).]


Summaries of

Thomas v. Broadway Pilates, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2008
52 A.D.3d 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Thomas v. Broadway Pilates, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:NINA THOMAS, Appellant, v. BROADWAY PILATES, LTD., Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 232 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4939
859 N.Y.S.2d 74

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

Therefore, he is held to have assumed the obvious and inherent risks of using the equipment at the facility…