You are here: / / GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 PROVIDES IMMUNITY FROM NEGLIGENCE SUITS STEMMING...

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 PROVIDES IMMUNITY FROM NEGLIGENCE SUITS STEMMING FROM AUTHORIZED RECREATIONAL USE OF THE OWNER’S PROPERTY, BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE IMMUNITY FOR ACTIONS OR OMISSIONS BY THE OWNER ALLEGED TO BE “WILLFUL OR MALICIOUS” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff mountain biker’s (Fleming’s) cause of action alleging defendants’ failure to properly maintain a wooden bridge on a trail was properly dismissed pursuant to General Obligations law section 9-103. But the cause of action alleging the negligent failure to maintain the bridge and the negligent failure to to warn of the dangerous condition, which further alleged the failure was “willful or malicious,” should not have been dismissed. Willful and malicious actions are not within the scope of the immunity provided by General Obligations Law 9-103:

Plaintiffs [allege] that defendants had constructed and maintained the bridge in a manner that created a dangerous condition, and that, by failing to maintain the bridge and failing to warn of the dangerous condition, defendants’ actions had been willful and malicious. … [T]he limitation of liability provided by General Obligations Law § 9-103 does not extend to the failure to warn of a dangerous condition if that failure was “willful or malicious” … .

… Fleming avowed that he was riding a mountain bike on trails that were publicized to be suitable for such activity by the Town of Malta. Because the first cause of action alleged only ordinary negligence, defendants were entitled to the immunity afforded by General Obligations Law § 9-103 if they could establish that Fleming was “engaged in one of the enumerated recreational activities on land suitable for that activity” … .  Fleming v Jenna’s Forest Homeowners’ Assn., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03216, Third Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: General Obligations Law 9-103 protects property owners from negligence suits based on the authorized recreational use of the property, but does not protect property owners from suits alleging injury from “willful or malicious” actions or omissions.

 

You might also like
Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract
Participation in One’s Own Business, Even If the Business Generates No Income, Can Render One Ineligible for Unemployment Benefits
Failure to Record Testimony Relied Upon by Hearing Officer Required Annulment
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE “INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” DEFENSE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Documents Relevant to a Civil Investigation by the Department of Taxation and Finance Were Not Protected from FOIL Disclosure by a Statute which Specifically Relates to Criminal Investigations
Revocation of Empire Zone Program Certifications Cannot Be Applied Retroactively
Question of Fact Whether Defendants Assumed a Duty of Reasonable Care When Escorting Elderly Plaintiff to His Car at Night
CORRECTION OFFICER NOT ENTITLED TO TWO-YEAR LEAVE OF ABSENCE; THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE FINDING PETITIONER’S PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION WITH AN INMATE WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW (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

ALTHOUGH THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TAKEN A YEAR BEFORE THE SLIP... THE FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE THE COUNTY TREASURER WITH THE PETITION SEEKING JUDICIAL...