From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Qiao v. Finn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Dec 10, 2020
189 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

12581 Index No. 152443/18 Case No. 2020–01939

12-10-2020

George QIAO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Christopher FINN et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, New York (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), for appellants. Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, for respondent.


Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, New York (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), for appellants.

Alexander J. Wulwick, New York, for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Kern, Singh, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered on or about February 20, 2020, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured during a personal training session at defendant Lifetime Fitness Inc.'s facility when defendant Finn, the trainer, urged him to continue performing exercises after he complained of pain.

Defendants have not established that they are entitled to summary judgment based upon the existence of a signed release and waiver of liability.

Moreover, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based upon their assumption of the risk defense. It is clear that plaintiff, who was not new to fitness training and had previously injured his right elbow while exercising, voluntarily assumed the risks entailed in properly supervised fitness training. However, plaintiff raised issues of fact as to whether the trainer unreasonably increased the risk of harm by instructing him to continue exercising through the pain that he allegedly complained of in his right elbow ( Levy v. Town Sports Intern., Inc., 101 A.D.3d 519, 955 N.Y.S.2d 599 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Mathis v. New York Health Club, Inc., 261 A.D.2d 345, 346, 690 N.Y.S.2d 433 [1st Dept. 1999] ).

For similar reasons, defendants' argument that they were not negligent as a matter of law is unavailing. Plaintiff raised disputed issues of fact as to whether the trainer breached a duty of care by allegedly instructing him to continue exercising after he expressed that he was experiencing pain.


Summaries of

Qiao v. Finn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Dec 10, 2020
189 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Qiao v. Finn

Case Details

Full title:George Qiao, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Christopher Finn et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 10, 2020

Citations

189 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 7473
133 N.Y.S.3d 793