Legal Opinion

McKenney v. Dominick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 5, 1993PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in concluding that plaintiffs’ cause of action is barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. With the enactment of the comparative negligence statute, assumption of risk is no longer an absolute defense but a measure of defendant’s duty of care (see, CPLR 1411; Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 657; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439). ”[T]he assumption of risk to be implied from participation in a sport with awareness of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Turcotte v. FellNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Benitez v. New York City Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Maddox v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1985

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Weller v. Colleges of SenecasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  2. Heminway v. State UniversityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  3. Roberts v. Ski Roundtop, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  4. Conary v. Clover Lanes, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  5. Taylor v. Village of IlionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API