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
WHERE ONE OF TWO RELATED FORECLOSURE ACTIONS IS SUBJECT TO A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO DISMISS AS TIME-BARRED, IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TIME-BARRED ACTION WITH THE TIMELY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE PEDESTRIANS HAD A SAFE PASSAGEWAY; PLAINTIFFS WERE STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN THEY WALKED IN THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WAS BLOCKED; THE THEORY OF LIABILITY APPEARS TO STEM FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION UPON A PUBLIC STREET OR SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
INITIAL ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT WAS TIMELY BUT DEFECTIVE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION; UPON HER RETURN FROM MATERNITY LEAVE SHE WAS TOLD HER POSITION HAD BEEN ELIMINATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Procedure for Determining a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Where the Defendant Submits Evidence Explained/Elements of Gross Negligence Explained
DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (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

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...