You are here: / / Primary Assumption of Risk Precludes Student’s Sports-Related Lawsuit....
,

Primary Assumption of Risk Precludes Student’s Sports-Related Lawsuit.

The “primary assumption of risk” doctrine precluded a student baseball player’s lawsuit against his school where the student was struck in the face by a baseball “that had been hit on the ground with a fungo bat.”  O’Connor vs Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free School District, 2-12-04146, Index No. 021556/09, Second Dept. 2-27-13

 

You might also like
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT IDENTIFY THE RECORDS RELIED UPON FOR THE CALCULATIONS AND DID NOT ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; IN ADDITION THE HEARING ON NOTICE REQUIRED BY CPLR 4313 WAS NOT HELD (SECOND DEPT).
SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT.
Differences Between Civil and Criminal Contempt Explained
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE CONDITION OF SIDEWALKS BUT NOT CITY OWNED TREE WELLS, UNLESS THEY AFFIRMATIVELY CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, NEGLIGENTLY REPAIR THE AREA, OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY A SPECIAL USE; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE WELL, NOT THE SIDEWALK, AND NONE OF THE OTHER LIABILITY THEORIES APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ISSUING A PERMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF UP TO 1.5 BILLION GALLONS OF RIVER WATER PER DAY TO COOL A POWER PLANT IS NOT A MINISTERIAL, NON-DISCRETIONARY ACT, THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) APPLIES TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

Mistrial on Motion by Prosecution Precluded Retrial. State Owns Submerged Land Below a Navigable Lake, Municipality Cannot Regulate...