Opinion
December 11, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Assumption of the risk is not an absolute defense, but rather, "generally [creates] a question of fact for a jury" (Maddox v City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 279; see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 657; Turcotte v Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439; Baker v Briarcliff School Dist., 205 A.D.2d 652, 655; Lamey v Foley, 188 A.D.2d 157, 164). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the extent to which, if any, the plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury she sustained was a question of fact which was properly submitted to the jury (cf., Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., supra; Baker v Briarcliff School Dist., supra, at 655).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.