Belloro v. ChicomaBelloro v. Chicoma
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk relieved the defendants of any duty of care that they may have owed the plaintiff, even though the plaintiffs injury did not result from a leisure or sporting activity (see Westerville v Cornell Univ.,
In light of our determination, we do not reach the plaintiffs remaining contention. Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Skelos, JJ., concur.