Opinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff was injured when she fell while skiing on a trail owned and operated by the defendant. She alleged that her fall was caused by the presence of a small dip or bump which spanned approximately 75% of the width of the trail. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the doctrine of assumption of risk, and the Supreme Court granted the motion. We affirm.
The testimony of several witnesses at examinations before trial, including that of the plaintiff herself, established that the plaintiff was an experienced snow skier who had encountered conditions similar to those in this case at other ski trails, that she had successfully skied the trail in question several times on the day of her accident without difficulty, that the trail was in good condition and contained no unusual or unanticipated features, that the dip in the trail was clearly visible, and that the plaintiff was fully aware of the risk of falling and being injured while skiing. Inasmuch as the plaintiff voluntarily participated in the activity of skiing, was aware of the dangers associated with the sport, and knew or should reasonably have known of the patently obvious and readily observable terrain conditions which included the dip, the Supreme Court correctly found that she assumed the risk of falling in this case (see, Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432; Pascucci v. Town of Oyster Bay, 186 A.D.2d 725; Russini v. Incorporated Vil. of Mineola, 184 A.D.2d 561; Melko v. Town of Islip, 172 A.D.2d 729; Adamczak v. Leisure Rinks Southtown, 170 A.D.2d 951; Scaduto v State of New York, 86 A.D.2d 682, affd 56 N.Y.2d 762). Under these circumstances, the defendant fulfilled its obligation of making the trail as safe as it appeared to be, and no further duty of care was owed to the plaintiff (see, Turcotte v. Fell, supra; McDonald v. Huntington Crescent Club, 152 A.D.2d 543; Nagawiecki v State of New York, 150 A.D.2d 147; Verro v. New York Racing Assn., 142 A.D.2d 396). The affidavit of the plaintiff's expert was inadequate to raise a triable question of fact with respect to this issue. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.