You are here: / / RIDING A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC PATH USED BY BOTH BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS...
,

RIDING A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC PATH USED BY BOTH BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS IS NOT A RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH TRIGGERS THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this bicycle-fall case, determined the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply. Plaintiff was riding on public path which was not a designated venue for bicycling when he hit an area of broken asphalt:

… [T]he Court of Claims erred in determining that the path where the claimant’s accident occurred was a designated venue used specifically for bicycling. When the injury occurred, the claimant was engaged in a recreational bicycle ride on a paved, public surface. The claimant was not participating in an organized group event or sponsored ride. The claimant testified at trial that he could both bike and walk the path. That, in addition to the presence of pedestrians who precipitated the accident, demonstrated that the path was for public use, and not a designated venue for bicycling. Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant’s activity … . Alfieri v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 00886, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: Riding a bicycle on a public path used by pedestrians and bicyclists is not a recreational activity which triggers the assumption of the risk doctrine.

 

​

You might also like
Negligent Supervision and Retention and Respondeat Superior Causes of Action Against City Department of Education (DOE) Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Complaint Alleged Sexual Abuse of Student By Teacher
THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT IN AN ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Denied Constitutional Right to Present a Defense—Evidence Victim Identified Another as the Perpetrator Wrongly Excluded
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH EITHER THE “GENERAL CAUSATION” OR “SPECIFIC CAUSATION” FRYE CRITERIA IN THIS MOLD-INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO PUSH A HEAVY DOLLY UP A RAMP WHEN IT ROLLED BACK AND INJURED HIM (SECOND DEPT).
ADMISSION OF DNA EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANALYST VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).
SEVERAL COUNTS CHARGING CONTEMPT WERE RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE TRIAL EVIDENCE, COUNTS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not Meet Criteria for Statutory Path to Lawful Permanent Residency in US

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

PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE RELATING TO HIS MURDER... UNDER THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS MED MAL TRIAL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO...