Opinion
July 17, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).
In resolving conflict-of-law questions, courts must apply "the law of the jurisdiction which, because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation" (Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 481; see, Neumeier v. Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 128). New York has an "important interest in protecting its own residents injured in a foreign State against unfair or anachronistic statutes of that State" ( Schultz v. Boy Scouts, 65 N.Y.2d 189, 199; see also, Rakaric v. Croatian Cultural Club, 76 A.D.2d 619, appeal dismissed 52 N.Y.2d 1072; Scharfman v. National Jewish Hosp. Research Ctr., 122 A.D.2d 939). New York has a longstanding policy of disfavoring exculpatory contracts ( see, General Obligations Law § 5-326; Stone v Bridgehampton Race Circuit, 217 A.D.2d 541, 542, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 809). Accordingly, because of this State's interest in protecting its domiciliary, and because of defendant's solicitation of business in this State, New York law is applicable.
However, the IAS Court properly found that questions of fact exist with respect to the validity of the waiver form executed by plaintiff. It also properly dismissed the second affirmative defense of assumption of the risk. Defendant did not oppose this branch of plaintiffs cross-motion in the IAS Court, and defendant's arguments should not be considered for the first time on appeal ( City of New York v. Stack, 178 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 753).
We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.