You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Defect in Basketball Court Was Concealed Precluded...

Question of Fact Whether Defect in Basketball Court Was Concealed Precluded Summary Judgment Based upon Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined there was a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff, who was injured when he tripped on part of a defunct sprinkler system while playing basketball on defendant-town’s court, assumed the risks associated with using the court.  The Second Department wrote:

Here, the Town failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by eliminating all triable issues of fact as to the applicability of the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk … . The evidence submitted in support of its motion, including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographs of the basketball court and metal cap, demonstrated that the metal cap was small, was raised only slightly above ground level, was painted the same color as the basketball court, and was difficult to see from more than a few feet away. Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the condition was concealed, and it cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff assumed the risks associated with it … .  Bunn v Town of North Hempstead, 2013 NY Slip Op 05727, 2nd Dept 8-28-13

 

You might also like
Failure to State in the Notice of Claim that Defendant Created the Icy Condition on the Sidewalk, or that the Condition Was the Result of Defendant’s Negligence, Required Dismissal of the Complaint
COPY OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE; JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Imposition of Restitution at Sentencing Required Reversal Because Restitution Was Not Part of Plea Agreement
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Student Assumed the Risk of Injury from Indoor Soccer Practice–Relevant Law Discussed In Some Depth
Failure to File Proof of Service Is a Procedural Irregularity Which Can Be Cured
THE PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Unable to Pinpoint the Cause of Her Fall—“Feigned Issue” Raised In an Affidavit Could Not Stave Off Summary Judgment
RPAPL 1301(3) PROHIBITS MORE THAN ONE FORECLOSURE AT A TIME; THE VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE HERE WAS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED; THE PRIOR ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE INSTANT ACTION WAS COMMENCED (SECOND 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

Irreparable Injury to Plaintiffs Not Demonstrated and Balance of Equities Did... Questions of Fact Raised Whether Negligent Diversion of Water by Private Property...