You are here: / / Question of Fact About Negligent Supervision at Skating Rink

Question of Fact About Negligent Supervision at Skating Rink

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether injury incurred at defendant’s skating rink was the result of defendant’s negligent supervision:

Those charged with supervising a skating rink cannot be held liable for an injury if the act precipitating the injury was so sudden that no amount of supervision could have averted the accident … . Thus, where reckless behavior that is over and above the usual dangers inherent in the activity of skating is claimed to have caused the injury, the issue of whether the proprietor was negligent in supervising the skaters turns on whether the proprietor had sufficient notice of the allegedly reckless conduct so as to permit it to prevent the injury through the exercise of adequate supervision … . The duration and nature of the allegedly reckless conduct are factors that bear on this issue… .  Fader v Town of Oyster Bay, 2014 NY Slip Op 00324, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

You might also like
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PRE-IMPACT TERROR AND CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING THE REAR OF PLAINTFF’S STOPPED CAR; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) TOOK AND ADVOCATED POSITIONS WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN; NEW CUSTODY HEARING ORDERED WITH A NEW AFC (SECOND DEPT).
911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.
Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge About Contract Breaches Did Not Toll Statute of Limitations
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A U-TURN TO PURSUE A VEHICLE AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER 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

Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity... Court May Impliedly Vacate Note of Issue by Directing Discovery