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
Liability of Prime Contractors and Subcontractors Explained
Lease Provision Allowing Landlord to Comingle Security Deposit with Landlord’s Funds Was Void—Question of Fact Whether Both Parties’ Actions Resulted in Termination of the Lease by Operation of Law
THE VICTIM DIED BY STRANGULATION; THE DEFENSE WAS DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO KILL; THE VICTIM’S HEARSAY STATEMENTS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW THE DEFENDANT’S, AS OPPOSED TO THE VICTIM’S, STATE OF MIND; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DEFECT, A PROTRUDING BOLT UNDER THE HANDRAIL IN A STAIRWAY, WAS TRIVIAL AND NONACTIONABLE, THE $650,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF POINTS WAS REDUCED BY THE CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT FROM “ARMED WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” (RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD) TO “INFLICTED PERSONAL INJURY,” DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO 10 DAYS NOTICE OF THE CHANGE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised about Whether Injury at Summer Day Camp Resulted from Inadequate Supervision

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...