From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nally v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2003
305 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CA 02-02584

May 2, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frazee, J.), entered April 8, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant County of Monroe for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

CHAMBERLAIN, D'AMANDA, OPPENHEIMER GREENFIELD, ROCHESTER (K. WADE EATON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

HISCOCK BARCLAY, LLP, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH A. WILSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, PINE, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries that she sustained when she fell on an asphalt path in Highland Park after two boys, defendants John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, approached her on rollerblades. The park is owned by defendant County of Monroe (County), and the accident occurred during the Lilac Festival, a popular annual event at the park. Plaintiff alleges that the County was negligent in failing to establish rules limiting or prohibiting the use of rollerblades during the festival and in failing otherwise to protect festival patrons from the hazards resulting from the presence of rollerbladers. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the County seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. The duty of the County to maintain the park in a reasonably safe condition "includes not only physical care of the property but also prevention of ultrahazardous and criminal activity of which it has knowledge" ( Benjamin v. City of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 44, 46). Rollerblading, however, does not rise to the level of ultrahazardous or criminal activity, and thus as a matter of law the County did not breach its duty to plaintiff ( see Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027-1028; Plante v. Hinton, 271 A.D.2d 781, 783; Muzich v. Bonomolo, 209 A.D.2d 387, 388-389, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 812; Adams v New York City Hous. Auth., 165 A.D.2d 849, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 803).


Summaries of

Nally v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2003
305 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Nally v. County of Monroe

Case Details

Full title:CAROLINE L. NALLY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF MONROE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 2, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 581

Citing Cases

Marino v. State of New York

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. A municipality is under a duty to maintain its park and…

Foreman v. Town of Oyster Bay

This duty “includes not only physical care of the property but also prevention of ultrahazardous and criminal…