Ageitos v. Chatham Towers, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Ageitos v. Chatham Towers, Inc., 283 A.D.2d 234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Morales v. Coram Materials Corp. (nyappdiv, 2009-07-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morales v. Coram Materials Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is particularly applicable to the recreational activity of ATV riding on terrain such as an active sand and gravel mine (see Sedita v City of New York, 8 AD3d 256 [2004]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 236-237 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cotty v. Town of Southampton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Indeed, the irregular surface of an unimproved dirt-bike path is “presumably the very challenge that attracts dirt-bike riders as opposed to riding on a paved surface” (Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 237 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vilomar v. 490 East 181st Street Housing Development Fund Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
This affidavit was properly rejected by the motion court as feigned evidence tailored to avoid the consequences of plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he did not observe any banana peels on the stairs the day before the accident and never made any complaints to defendants specifically about garbage on the stairs (see Phillips v Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 268 AD2d 318 [2000]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 235-236 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quackenbush v. City of Buffalo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Owners, Inc., 41 AD3d 817, 820-821 [2007]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 236-237 [2001]), we agree with plaintiff that there is an issue of fact whether the hole at issues in this case was open and obvious (see Berfas v Town of Oyster Bay, 286 AD2d 466 [2001]; see also Moore v City of New York, 29 AD3d 751 [2006]; Weller v Colleges of the Senecas, 217 AD2d 280, 284-285 [1995]; cf. Rivera, 41 AD3d at 820-821 ; Goldberg, 289 AD2d 198 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rivera v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
By engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly-appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation (see Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]; Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484-486 [1997]; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1985]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 236 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Koziarz v. New York City Transit Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
There is no evidence that defendant’s failure to turn over the trip sheet was willful or in bad faith, or that plaintiff will be prejudiced by the late disclosure, and denying defendant permission to supplement its discovery response by turning over the trip sheet effectively precluded evidence from the only independent eyewitnesses to the accident (see Scherrer v Time Equities, Inc., 27 AD3d 208 [2006]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 237 [2001]; Anagnostaros v 81st St.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Papoters v. 40-01 Northern Blvd. Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Plaintiffs opposing affidavit, which states that the top step was wet, is unavailing since it contradicts his prior deposition testimony, and is thus inherently suspect (see Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 235-236 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sedita v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
“It is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results” (Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270, 278 [1985]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 236 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vestal v. County of Suffolk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Contrary to the County’s contention, the injured plaintiff cannot be said as a matter of law to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of a defective condition on a paved pathway merely because she participated in the activity of bicycling (see Berfas v Town of Oyster Bay, 286 AD2d 466 [2001]; cf. Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 236 [2001]).
discussed Cited "see" Telfeyan v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
Affidavit testimony that is obviously prepared in support of ongoing litigation that directly contradicts deposition testimony previously given by the same witness, without any explanation accounting for the disparity, “creates only a feigned issue of fact, and is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment” (Harty v Lenci, 294 AD2d 296, 298 [2002]; see Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 235-236 [2001]; Sullivan v International Fid.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Francisco Ageitos
v.
Chatham Towers, Inc., and Rockledge Scaffold Corp., (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 10, 2001.
283 A.D.2d 234
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4830
Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 12, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial in an action by a laborer under Labor Law § 240 (1), apportioned liability 10% against defendant-respondent building owner, 30% against defendant-respondent general contractor, and 60% against defendant-appellant sidewalk bridge builder, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that appellant’s negligence was the main cause of plaintiff’s injury. Appellant’s principal testified that the only instructions appellant received were to build the bridge “according to Code,” and evidence at trial showed that the bridge was noncompliant with the Code in at least one respect significantly related to" the accident, namely, the failure to erect a barrier around the opening through which plaintiff fell (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [b]). We reject appellant’s argument that the unexplained placement of a piece of plywood over the opening constituted a superceding cause of the accident. Had a barrier been in place, plaintiff would have been put on notice of a dangerous condition, and would not have walked unsuspectingly onto the makeshift plywood cover. In view of the foregoing, there can be no review of the 10% apportionment made against the building owner since it did not file an appeal or cross appeal (see, Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 62). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.