| Ribaudo v La Salle Inst. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08431 [45 AD3d 556] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mark T. Ribaudo, Jr., et al., Respondents, v La SalleInstitute et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Scott A. Stern of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limitedby their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.),dated September 26, 2006, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The infant plaintiff, an experienced basketball player who had played amateur competitivebasketball for years, was injured while playing in a basketball tournament in a gymnasium at thedefendant La Salle Institute of Troy, N.Y., sued herein as La Salle Institute, a private high school.After playing one game in the gymnasium without incident, the infant plaintiff allegedly wasinjured in a second game in the gymnasium when he tried to keep a ball from going out ofbounds, and ran full speed into a concrete wall.
The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground thatthe conditions of the gymnasium complained of by the plaintiffs were readily apparent, and as anexperienced player, the infant plaintiff assumed the risk of playing under those conditions. TheSupreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.[*2]
Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of therisk, a participant in a sporting activity consents to those risks which are inherent in the sport (see Trevett v City of Little Falls, 6NY3d 884 [2006]; Sykes v County of Erie, 94 NY2d 912, 913 [2000]). The doctrineof primary assumption of the risk, however, will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk isunassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased (see Morgan v State of New York, 90NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; Rosenbaum vBayis Ne'Emon, Inc. 32 AD3d 534, 535 [2006]).
The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawbased upon the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk by demonstrating that the risk ofcolliding with a wall was inherent in the sport, and the condition of the wall was open andobvious (see Trevett v City of LittleFalls, 6 NY3d 884 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact asto whether the failure to pad the wall created a risk beyond those inherent in the sport ofbasketball (see Kazlow v City of New York, 253 AD2d 411 [1998]). There is noevidence in this record that the position of the wall or the lack of padding violated any applicablestandards relating to basketball courts (see Kazlow v City of New York, 253 AD2d 411[1998]; cf. Greenburg v Peekskill City School Dist., 255 AD2d 487 [1998]).
Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Miller, J.P., Ritter,Goldstein and Dickerson, JJ., concur.