midpage

Rodriguez v. City of New YorkRodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Mar 17, 2011
Versions:82 A.D.3d 563
918 N.Y.2d 718

Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate since plaintiff assumed the risk that resulted in his injury (see Roberts v Boys & Girls Republic, Inc., 51 AD3d 246, 247 [2008], affd 10 NY3d 889 [2008]). The record demonstrates that plaintiff was aware that batting practice was taking place as he was standing at the open gate in an effort to call to his young son who was on the field. Contrary to plaintiff‘s contention, the City did not have a duty to ensure that the subject gate along the third baseline be equipped with a latch or a self-closing mechanism (see Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 331 [1981]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Rodriguez v. City of New York
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Mar 17, 2011
Citations: 82 A.D.3d 563; 918 N.Y.2d 718
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
Log In