You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE ARM AND FOOT PEDAL OF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE...

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE ARM AND FOOT PEDAL OF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE AT DEFENDANT’S GYM BROKE OFF; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant gym was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury action. Plaintiff alleged the arm and foot pedal of the elliptical machine she was using detached. Defendant did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the defect or that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury:

Although the defendants submitted a transcript of deposition testimony from their employee regarding the defendants’ general practice of testing exercise equipment each weekday, they failed to present any specific evidence as to when the subject elliptical machine was last inspected relative to the subject incident. Mere reference to general practices, with no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the equipment in question, is insufficient to establish lack of constructive notice … . …

… [P]articipants are not deemed to have assumed risks that are concealed or unreasonably increased over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport or recreational activity … . Here, the risk of the left arm and foot pedal of an elliptical machine detaching or hinging out is not inherent in the recreational activity of exercising on an elliptical machine in a gym. Rather, the alleged defective condition of the elliptical machine enhanced the risk of injuries … . Buffalino v XSport Fitness, 2022 NY Slip Op 00998, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BOTH PARENTS ACKNOWLEDGED A CHANGE IN THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT WAS NEEDED, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR ONE YEAR; THE DMV SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO REINSTATE HIS LICENSE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS LICENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
​THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) RELIED SOLELY ON PRIOR NEGLECT FINDINGS FROM 2007 AND 2009 TO PROVE DERIVATIVE NEGLECT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED A DISCONTINUANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AFFORDED BY CPLR 205(A) (SECOND DEPT).
There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident—Plaintiff, to Prevail On a Motion for Summary Judgment, Must Demonstrate Both Defendant’s Negligence as a Matter of Law and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault

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

TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A PATIENT’S FAILURE TO SHOW... THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304...