8 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Trupia v. Lake George Central School Districtgreen2 sentences2014School Dist., 14 NY3d 392, 396 [2010]). 2014School Dist., 14 NY3d 392, 396 [2010]). | 4 | 4 |
Custodi v. Town of Amherstgreen2 sentences2019Finally, contrary to the defendants' contention, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to this action ( see Custodi v Town of Amherst , 20 NY3d 83, 89 ; Behr v County of Nassau , 124 AD3d 708 ; Ashbourne v City of New York , 82 AD3d 461, 463 ; Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d 251, 257 ). 2014Finally, contrary to defendant’s contention, the doctrine of assumption of risk is inapplicable to the injury-producing activity at issue here (see Custodi v Town of Amherst, 20 NY3d 83, 89 [2012] ; Trupia v Lake George Cent. | 3 | 4 |
Morgan v. Stategreen1 sentence2022"Under the assumption of risk doctrine, a person who elects to engage in a sport or recreational activity 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" ( Schorpp v Oak Mtn., LLC , 143 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Morgan v State of New York , 90 NY2d 471, 484-485 [1997]; Thompson v Windham Mtn. | 1 | 1 |
Schorpp v. Oak Mountain, LLCgreen1 sentence2022"Under the assumption of risk doctrine, a person who elects to engage in a sport or recreational activity 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" ( Schorpp v Oak Mtn., LLC , 143 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Morgan v State of New York , 90 NY2d 471, 484-485 [1997]; Thompson v Windham Mtn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cotty v. Town of Southampton
green
2 sentences2024Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant's activity ( see Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d at 255-257 ; Caraballo v City of Yonkers , 54 AD3d 796, 796-797 ; Phillips v County of Nassau , 50 AD3d 755, 757 ; Moore v City of New York , 29 AD3d 751, 751-752 ; Vestal v County of Suffolk , 7 AD3d 613, 614-615 ). 2019Finally, contrary to the defendants' contention, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to this action ( see Custodi v Town of Amherst , 20 NY3d 83, 89 ; Behr v County of Nassau , 124 AD3d 708 ; Ashbourne v City of New York , 82 AD3d 461, 463 ; Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d 251, 257 ). | 2 | 2019–2024 |
Caraballo v. City of Yonkers
green
1 sentence2024Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant's activity ( see Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d at 255-257 ; Caraballo v City of Yonkers , 54 AD3d 796, 796-797 ; Phillips v County of Nassau , 50 AD3d 755, 757 ; Moore v City of New York , 29 AD3d 751, 751-752 ; Vestal v County of Suffolk , 7 AD3d 613, 614-615 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Zeitlin v. Greenberg, Margolis, Ziegler, Schwartz, Dratch, Fishman, Franzblau & Falkin, P. A.
green
1 sentence2024Accordingly, the Court of Claims erred in awarding a judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissing the claim based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and the matter must be remitted to it for a decision on those issues left undecided as a result of its determination ( see McGowan v State of New York , 41 AD3d 670, 672 ; Zuckerman v State of New York , 209 AD2d 510, 512 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Vestal v. County of Suffolk
green
1 sentence2024Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant's activity ( see Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d at 255-257 ; Caraballo v City of Yonkers , 54 AD3d 796, 796-797 ; Phillips v County of Nassau , 50 AD3d 755, 757 ; Moore v City of New York , 29 AD3d 751, 751-752 ; Vestal v County of Suffolk , 7 AD3d 613, 614-615 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Moore v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2024Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant's activity ( see Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d at 255-257 ; Caraballo v City of Yonkers , 54 AD3d 796, 796-797 ; Phillips v County of Nassau , 50 AD3d 755, 757 ; Moore v City of New York , 29 AD3d 751, 751-752 ; Vestal v County of Suffolk , 7 AD3d 613, 614-615 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
McGowan v. State
green
1 sentence2024Accordingly, the Court of Claims erred in awarding a judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissing the claim based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and the matter must be remitted to it for a decision on those issues left undecided as a result of its determination ( see McGowan v State of New York , 41 AD3d 670, 672 ; Zuckerman v State of New York , 209 AD2d 510, 512 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Phillips v. County of Nassau
green
1 sentence2024Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant's activity ( see Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d at 255-257 ; Caraballo v City of Yonkers , 54 AD3d 796, 796-797 ; Phillips v County of Nassau , 50 AD3d 755, 757 ; Moore v City of New York , 29 AD3d 751, 751-752 ; Vestal v County of Suffolk , 7 AD3d 613, 614-615 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ashbourne v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2019Finally, contrary to the defendants' contention, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to this action ( see Custodi v Town of Amherst , 20 NY3d 83, 89 ; Behr v County of Nassau , 124 AD3d 708 ; Ashbourne v City of New York , 82 AD3d 461, 463 ; Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d 251, 257 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Behr v. County of Nassau
neutral
1 sentence2019Finally, contrary to the defendants' contention, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to this action ( see Custodi v Town of Amherst , 20 NY3d 83, 89 ; Behr v County of Nassau , 124 AD3d 708 ; Ashbourne v City of New York , 82 AD3d 461, 463 ; Cotty v Town of Southampton , 64 AD3d 251, 257 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lemovitz v. Pine Ridge Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence2001As there-is no dispute that plaintiff was not yet engaged in the sport of golf when injured, that is, he was merely in the parking lot en route to the clubhouse well before commencement of the tournament in which he intended to play that day, we hold that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the facts of this case (compare, Lemovitz v Pine Ridge Realty Corp., 887 F Supp 16 ; Lundin v Town of Islip, 207 AD2d 778 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lundin v. Town of Islip
green
1 sentence2001As there-is no dispute that plaintiff was not yet engaged in the sport of golf when injured, that is, he was merely in the parking lot en route to the clubhouse well before commencement of the tournament in which he intended to play that day, we hold that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the facts of this case (compare, Lemovitz v Pine Ridge Realty Corp., 887 F Supp 16 ; Lundin v Town of Islip, 207 AD2d 778 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Youssef v. Cantelmo
green
1 sentence2001The doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply to a would-be sporting participant who is injured in the parking lot of the sporting facility well before commencement of the intended recreational or sporting activity (see generally, Vogel v Venetz, 278 AD2d 489 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.