You are here: / / Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of...
,

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Release Signed in Anticipation of a Skydiving Course Precluded Personal Injury Action

Plaintiff had signed a release of liability in connection with a one-hour skydiving course.  Before the course could be given, the plane crashed and plaintiff was injured.  In moving to dismiss the complaint, the defendants argued that General Obligations Law 5-326, which renders releases issued by “places of recreation” void, did not apply.  The motion court denied the motion to dismiss and the Fourth Department affirmed:

Defendants assert that section 5-326 does not apply here because [defendant] is an instructional facility, rather than a recreational facility. Where a facility is “used for purely instructional purposes,” section 5-326 is inapplicable even if the instruction that is provided relates to an activity that is recreational in nature … . “In assessing whether a facility is instructional or recreational, courts have examined, inter alia, the organization’s name, its certificate of incorporation, its statement of purpose and whether the money it charges is tuition or a fee for use of the facility” …. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, a court “may . . . consider affidavits and other evidentiary material to ‘establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action’ ” … We conclude that [defendant’s] facility is not used purely for instructional purposes based upon our review of [defendant’s] certificate of incorporation, including the statement of purpose contained therein; the services for which plaintiff paid a fee, i.e., whether she paid for a course of instruction or for use of the facilities; as well as the other evidence submitted by defendants. Thus, defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that General Obligations Law § 5-326 does not apply here …  and have failed to establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action. Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc, CA 12-01861, 216, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) HAD BEEN IMPOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BECAUSE THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF PRS IS NOW CLEAR, SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND IS NOT THEREFORE NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).
ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND DEGREE IS A LESSER INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE; THE TWO COUNTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS.
BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM COMMUNICATING WITH HIS ATTORNEY DURING OVERNIGHT RECESSES WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ON THE STAND (FOURTH DEPT).
FORMER STUDENT’S ALLEGATIONS DEFENDANT COLLEGE BREACHED ITS AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD NOT DISCLOSE ITS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE STUDENT TO SCHOOLS TO WHICH THE STUDENT APPLIED FOR ADMISSION PROPERLY SURVIVED THE COLLEGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS; ADOPTING AND APPLYING THE HEIGHTENED STANDARD FOR DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION, THE DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Petition to Vacate Hearing Officer’s Decision Terminating Petitioner (a School Administrator) Was Not Properly Served Upon a “School Officer”
SORA Finding Reduced Twenty Points—No Evidence or Findings Re: Targeting of Victim
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO REOPEN THE PROOF AFTER A VIDEO PLAYED DURING SUMMATION DEMONSTRATED THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAD NOT TESTIFIED TRUTHFULLY, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO VIEW THE ENTIRE VIDEO PRIOR TO TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s... 2 ½ Inch Drop in Pavement Was Not Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Loss of...