97 N.Y.2d at 670 Determining inherent risks in recreational sports activities7 citing cases
- Spiteri v. Bisson, 134 A.D.3d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedThe defendants further established, prima facie, that they did not unreasonably increase this risk of being struck by a lacrosse ball (see Anand v Kapoor, 15 NY3d at 948 ; Fintzi v New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, 97 NY2d 669, 670 [2001]).
- Bukowski v. Clarkson Univ., 86 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).publishedThe alleged lack of supervision did not increase the risks over and above the usual dangers inherent in the sport itself (see Fintzi v New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, 97 NY2d 669, 670 [2001]; Palozzi v Priest, 280 AD2d 986, 987 [2001]).
- Ramos v. City of New York, 70 A.D.3d 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010).publishedNor is there any evidence that the City unreasonably increased that risk (see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650 [1989]; Fintzi v New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, 97 NY2d 669, 670 [2001]; Hernandez v Castle Hill Little League, 25…
- Ross v. New York Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Soc'y of Friends, 32 A.D.3d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2006).publishedIn opposing the summary judgment motion, plaintiffs raised a triable issue as to whether the inherent and obvious risks of the subject activity were unreasonably increased by the supervising coach (see Zmitrowitz v Roman Catholic Diocese o…
- Henry v. Roosevelt Sch. Dist., 29 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).publishedIn support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Fintzi v New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, 97 NY2d 669, 670 [2001]; Sauer v Hebrew Inst. of Long Is., 17 A…
- Gortych v. Brenner, 83 A.D.3d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).publishedThe blind curve in the roadway was not concealed but was part of the natural topography of Central Park that was open and obvious to all users of the roadway; thus, it was not the result of a breach by the City defendants of their “duty to…
- Simmons v. Saugerties Cent. Sch. Dist., 82 A.D.3d 1407 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).publishedIndeed, it has long been held that although schools supervising athletic or recreational activities do not owe student athletes “the more protective duty and standard of care of a prudent parent” (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N…
v.
New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, Doing Business as Camp Nah-Jee-Wah, Appellant
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
Plaintiff Jonathan Fintzi, age 10, participated in a relay race at a summer camp operated by defendant New Jersey YMHA-YWHA. The race occurred on a grass field marked off by four cones, and the field was wet due to morning humidity and fog. While running the course, Jonathan slipped and fell twice on the wet ground. On the second fall, he broke his arm. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, with two Justices dissenting.
We agree with the dissenters below that merely allowing children to play on wet grass does not constitute negligent supervision (see, Sauer v Hebrew Inst., 17 AD2d 245, affd without opn 13 NY2d 913). Organizers of sporting or recreational events owe a duty to exercise only reasonable care to protect participants “from injuries arising out of unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks” (Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 654). Here, there is no evidence that the camp counselors increased the risk associated with the naturally and obviously damp field. To hold defendant liable in this situation would, as the dissenters observed, “so sterilize camping * * * as to render it sedentary” (Sauer, supra, 17 AD2d, at 246). Accordingly, on the record before us, we conclude as a matter of law that plaintiffs injury was not the consequence of a failed duty of care on the part of defendant.
[*671] Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ceparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum.