Wilkes v. YMCA of Greater New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*543Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment based on the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk by demonstrating that the risk of colliding with the wall was inherent in the activity, and the condition of the wall was open and obvious (Ribaudo v La Salle Inst., 45 AD3d 556 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 717 [2008]). Any difference between the wall and the out-of-bounds line was “perfectly obvious” (McKey v City of New York, 234 AD2d 114, 115 [1996]). There was no evidence that defendants had notice of any allegedly wet condition on the basketball court (see Gordon v…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gordon v. American Museum of Natural HistoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Hotaling v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Ribaudo v. La Salle InstituteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- McKey v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Greenburg v. Peekskill City School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Zachary G. v. Young Israel of WoodmereAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Altagracia v. Harrison Central School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Caro v. ZogSports, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Caro v. ZogSports, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Perez v. New York City Department of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.