You are here: / / THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A 16-YEAR-OLD SOFTBALL PLAYER ASSUMED...
,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A 16-YEAR-OLD SOFTBALL PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STEPPING IN A HOLE ON THE FIELD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a 16-year-old softball player assumed the risk of stepping into a hole on the softball field:

Plaintiff, an experienced 16-year-old softball player was playing softball on an outdoor artificial turf field owned by defendant City of New York (the City). Plaintiff maintained that she sustained injures to her left knee when she stepped into a hole on the turf that had been placed over existing turf. The City contends that the hole was an open and obvious condition and that plaintiff assume the risk of injury. We disagree. The photographs in the record appear to depict a tear or seam in the turf that may have caused a concealed depression relative to the surrounding playing surface.

Accordingly, issues of fact exist whether the City was negligent in maintaining the field in a reasonably safe condition. Although a participant in an athletic activity is deemed to have assumed “those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation,” there remain issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries resulted from concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . A.S. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 02975, First Dept 5-11-21

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE OF HOW THE MURDER VICTIM FELT ABOUT DEFENDANT AND EVIDENCE OF STRIFE IN THE COUPLE’S RELATIONSHIP ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MOTIVE AND IDENTITY.
THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT SUPPORTED “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL;” PLAINTIFF ALLEGED FUNDS OWED TO HER WERE DIVERTED TO RENDER THE CORPORATION JUDGMENT PROOF (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRUCK-BICYCLE COLLISION CASE; THE TRUCK DRIVER BREACHED HIS DUTY TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN (FIRST DEPT).
CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROVISIONS, THE ALLEGATIONS DID STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE MORE PROTECTIVE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

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

THE NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) PROPERLY HELD THE APARTMENT... THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION IN THE CERTIFICATE OF...