From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 13, 2000
268 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 13, 2000

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered March 29, 1999, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Lisa M. Comeau for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Joseph C. Fegan for Defendant-Respondent.

SULLIVAN, J.P., WILLIAMS, RUBIN, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


No issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff appreciated the risks inherent in playing tackle football on the field where he sustained his injuries, including those associated with any open and obvious conditions on the field (see, Flores v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 148, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12331). Plaintiff, who was struck in the eye by a low lying branch of a tree on the field when he jumped on the back of an opposing player to tackle him, acknowledged in his deposition that he participated in the selection of the tree as a field marker, and was otherwise aware of the tree and its low lying branches prior to the accident. In these circumstances, we reject the 12-year old plaintiff's claim that he was incapable of assuming the risk of running into the tree (cf., e.g., Morales v. New York City Hous. Auth., 187 A.D.2d 295;Hernandez v. Castle Hill Little League, 256 A.D.2d 241; Griffin v. Lardo, 247 A.D.2d 825, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 814; Osborne v. Olean Bd. of Educ., 186 A.D.2d 1059). No issue of fact is raised by plaintiff's claim that he did not see the particular thorny branch that injured him before he was injured, since the tree and its branches admittedly were not concealed (see, Colucci v. Nansen Park, 226 A.D.2d 336), and it is not necessary to application of assumption of risk that plaintiff have foreseen that his injury would be caused by a thorn on a low lying branch, rather than, for example, his running into a thornless branch (see, Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 278).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Robinson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 13, 2000
268 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Robinson v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:JOHNNY ROBINSON JR., etc., et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY…

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

Date published: Jan 13, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 22

Citing Cases

Roberts v. Boys

This description of the scope of a plaintiffs assumption, however, is not exhaustive, for pursuant to the…

Regan v. City of N.Y.

(See Trevett v City of Little Falls, 6 NY3d 884 [2006] [as proximity of pole to basketball court was open and…