Edwin Lozada et al v. Incorporated Village of Freeport et al, 604836/2020, 139 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau County Aug. 30, 2022) (2024)

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`grossly
`
`negligent
`
`conduct.
`
`4.
`
`It
`
`is respectfully
`
`submitted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`indisputable
`
`evidence
`
`shows
`
`that
`
`the
`
`VILLAGE
`
`breached
`
`its duty
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`in that
`
`it
`
`failed
`
`to maintain
`
`the
`
`softball
`
`field
`
`and
`
`conditions
`
`thereupon
`
`in a reasonably
`
`safe
`
`condition
`
`as they
`
`appeared
`
`to be.
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`their
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`that
`
`duty
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`resulted
`
`in and was
`
`a proximate
`
`cause
`
`of his
`
`injuries.
`
`Moreover,
`
`as set
`
`forth
`
`in Plaintiff's
`
`moving
`
`papers
`
`the VILLAGE
`
`actively
`
`created
`
`the
`
`hazardous
`
`condition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`it
`
`to be
`
`base
`
`because
`
`it
`
`installed
`
`it
`
`improperly
`
`and
`
`used
`
`improper
`
`packing
`
`material
`
`causing
`
`unsecure
`
`and
`
`of poor
`
`structural
`
`integrity,
`
`hence
`
`notice
`
`is not
`
`required.
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT
`
`OF FACTS
`
`5.
`
`Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`never
`
`played
`
`at Randall
`
`Park
`
`prior
`
`to the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`and
`
`he
`
`was
`
`not
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the
`
`field.
`
`(Lozada
`
`50-H
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A",
`
`Pg.
`
`8, L.
`
`14-19)
`
`6.
`
`Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`paid
`
`a $200
`
`fee
`
`to play
`
`with
`
`the ABA league.
`
`(Pg.
`
`12, 1. 10-17)
`
`been
`
`of walked
`
`in runs
`
`therefore,
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Prior
`
`to Mr.
`
`Lozada's
`
`third
`
`inning
`
`accident
`
`there
`
`had
`
`a lot
`
`no one
`
`had
`
`ran
`
`around
`
`the bases.
`
`(Pg.
`
`17, 1. 24-25;
`
`18, 1. 1-3)
`
`Contrary
`
`to Defendants
`
`representations,
`
`the
`
`defect
`
`was
`
`not
`
`a hole
`
`but
`
`rather
`
`a base
`
`that
`
`collapsed
`
`into
`
`the
`
`ground.
`
`Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`his
`
`foot
`
`went
`
`onto
`
`the
`
`lowest
`
`corner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`base
`
`and
`
`then
`
`the
`
`base
`
`and
`
`his
`
`foot went
`
`into
`
`the
`
`ground.
`
`(Pg.
`
`23,
`
`1. 1-5; Pg.
`
`24,
`
`1. 12-16)
`
`for
`
`(Fisenne
`
`9.
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`is the Superintendent
`
`of Public
`
`Works
`
`the VILLAGE.
`
`Dep.
`
`Annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"B",
`
`Pg.
`
`9, 1. 3-12).
`
`There
`
`were
`
`no written
`
`regulations
`
`or
`
`rules
`
`issued
`
`to the
`
`parks
`
`employees
`
`regarding
`
`maintenance
`
`or
`
`repair
`
`of
`
`the
`
`fields.
`
`(Pg.
`
`16, 1. 1-7)
`
`10.
`
`In fact,
`
`the Village
`
`does
`
`not
`
`keep
`
`any written
`
`records
`
`of
`
`inspections
`
`regarding
`
`its
`
`baseball
`
`fields.
`
`(Pg.
`
`17, 1. 1-8)
`
`The VILLAGE
`
`would
`
`not
`
`have
`
`a written
`
`report
`
`of any
`
`conditions
`
`on their
`
`baseball
`
`fields
`
`that
`
`needed
`
`addressing.
`
`(Pg.
`
`17, 1. 9-13)
`
`2 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`11.
`
`The
`
`bases
`
`for
`
`the
`
`baseball
`
`games
`
`at VILLAGE
`
`fields
`
`are kept
`
`on the
`
`field
`
`throughout
`
`the
`
`season.
`
`(Pg,
`
`19, 1.10-20)
`
`They
`
`are not
`
`removed.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`the
`
`receiver
`
`for
`
`the base
`
`remains
`
`in the
`
`ground
`
`indefinitely
`
`and
`
`is just
`
`covered
`
`over
`
`with
`
`dirt
`
`during
`
`the
`
`off
`
`season.
`
`(Pg.
`
`65,
`
`1. 15-25;
`
`Pg.
`
`66,
`
`1. 1-11)
`
`12.
`
`The
`
`receiver
`
`is not
`
`actually
`
`secured
`
`into
`
`the
`
`ground
`
`with
`
`anything.
`
`According
`
`to
`
`base
`
`in place.
`
`He
`
`testified
`
`it
`
`is just
`
`buried
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`there
`
`is nothing
`
`holding
`
`the receiver
`
`of
`
`the
`
`into
`
`the
`
`ground
`
`by VILLAGE
`
`employees.
`
`(Pg.
`
`25,
`
`1. 23-25;
`
`Pg.
`
`26,
`
`1.
`
`1-8)
`
`13.
`
`The VILLAGE
`
`does
`
`not
`
`keep
`
`records
`
`of
`
`routine
`
`maintenance
`
`of
`
`its parks
`
`including
`
`maintenance
`
`of
`
`its
`
`fields.
`
`(Pg.
`
`36,
`
`1. 22-25;
`
`Pg.
`
`37,
`
`1. 1-7)
`
`14.
`
`No VILLAGE
`
`employees
`
`are present
`
`while
`
`the
`
`softball
`
`games
`
`are going
`
`on.
`
`In
`
`Fisenne
`
`admitted
`
`that
`
`if
`
`there
`
`was
`
`a problem
`
`with
`
`the
`
`field
`
`after
`
`the
`
`game
`
`begins
`
`they
`
`fact, Mr.
`
`would
`
`not
`
`be able
`
`to notify
`
`the VILLAGE.
`
`(Pg.
`
`48,
`
`1. 3-19)
`
`15.
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`testified
`
`contrary
`
`to the Village's
`
`affirmant
`
`and Clerk,
`
`that
`
`he did
`
`in
`
`fact
`
`receive
`
`complaints
`
`about
`
`the
`
`field
`
`at Randall
`
`Park
`
`not
`
`being
`
`ready
`
`for
`
`play
`
`and
`
`being
`
`wet.
`
`(Pg.
`
`53,
`
`1. 12-17;
`
`Pg.
`
`54,
`
`1. 11-19)
`
`However
`
`he admitted
`
`these
`
`complaints
`
`are not
`
`reduced
`
`to
`
`writing
`
`for
`
`addressing.
`
`(Pg.
`
`53,
`
`1. 18-25)
`
`He also
`
`did
`
`not
`
`elaborate
`
`on whether
`
`the
`
`field
`
`not
`
`being
`
`for
`
`included
`
`the
`
`bases.
`
`ready
`
`play
`
`16.
`
`During
`
`the
`
`time
`
`shown
`
`on the
`
`permit,
`
`according
`
`to the VILLAGE
`
`on the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`the ABA league
`
`would
`
`have
`
`had
`
`exclusive
`
`use
`
`of
`
`that
`
`field.
`
`(Pg.
`
`70,
`
`1. 22-25;
`
`Pg.
`
`71,
`
`1. 1-3)
`
`17.
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`admitted
`
`that
`
`if
`
`the
`
`base
`
`had
`
`been
`
`properly
`
`inserted
`
`into
`
`the receiver
`
`the base
`
`cannot
`
`cave
`
`in,
`
`as it did
`
`during
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`accident.
`
`(Pg.
`
`90,
`
`1. 10-25)
`
`18.
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`had
`
`no personal
`
`knowledge
`
`as to when
`
`Field
`
`2 at Randall
`
`Park was
`
`3 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`last
`
`inspected
`
`prior
`
`to the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident.
`
`He also
`
`had
`
`no personal
`
`knowledge
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`VILLAGE
`
`employees
`
`prepared
`
`and
`
`inspected
`
`the
`
`field
`
`on the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident.
`
`(Pg.
`
`92,
`
`1. 10-
`
`23)
`
`He had
`
`no knowledge
`
`of
`
`the
`
`conditions
`
`of
`
`the
`
`bases
`
`or
`
`receivers
`
`on Field
`
`2 on the date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident.
`
`(Pg.
`
`93,
`
`1. 8-12)
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`there
`
`would
`
`be no records
`
`maintained
`
`by
`
`the
`
`VILLAGE
`
`the
`
`field
`
`inspection
`
`or conditions
`
`thereon.
`
`regarding
`
`19.
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`there
`
`are no anchors
`
`on or around
`
`the
`
`bases
`
`at Randall
`
`Park.
`
`(Pg.
`
`94,
`
`1. 1-7)
`
`20.
`
`Mr.
`
`Glassman,
`
`President
`
`of
`
`the ABA recalls
`
`prior
`
`to the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`reporting
`
`puddles
`
`of water
`
`on the Field
`
`to the VILLAGE
`
`at Randall
`
`Park.
`
`( Glassman,
`
`Exhibit
`
`"C",
`
`Pg.
`
`26,
`
`1. 18-25;
`
`Pg.
`
`27,
`
`1. 1-10)
`
`He
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`the
`
`field
`
`at Randall
`
`Park
`
`held
`
`a lot of water
`
`and
`
`had
`
`issues
`
`water
`
`off
`
`the
`
`field
`
`in time
`
`for
`
`the
`
`games.
`
`(Pg.
`
`50,
`
`Contrary
`
`they
`
`getting
`
`1. 13-23)
`
`to the Village
`
`Clerk's
`
`affidavit,
`
`he complained
`
`about
`
`them to James
`
`Beaufort
`
`at
`
`the VILLAGE
`
`previously.
`
`(Pg.
`
`51,
`
`1. 5-12)
`
`21.
`
`Despite
`
`filling
`
`out
`
`a report
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`accident,
`
`Mr.
`
`Bolger,
`
`the Umpire
`
`on the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`game
`
`admitted
`
`he didn't
`
`see how Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`was
`
`injured
`
`he was
`
`just
`
`"assuming"
`
`something
`
`happened
`
`while
`
`rounding
`
`third
`
`base
`
`because
`
`of where
`
`he was
`
`tagged
`
`out.
`
`(Pg.
`
`30,
`
`1. 1-
`
`he did
`
`not
`
`discuss
`
`with
`
`Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`how
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`happened.
`
`(Pg.
`
`1.
`
`14) He
`
`admitted
`
`that
`
`32,
`
`7-12)
`
`Hence,
`
`the
`
`information
`
`in the
`
`incident
`
`report
`
`was
`
`based
`
`on Mr.
`
`Bolger's
`
`purported
`
`assumptions.
`
`22.
`
`Both
`
`Fabio
`
`Atanasio
`
`and Benny
`
`Colon,
`
`players
`
`on Plaintiff's
`
`team gave
`
`sworn
`
`witness
`
`statements
`
`regarding
`
`his
`
`June
`
`9, 2019
`
`accident.
`
`Both
`
`Mr.
`
`Atanasio
`
`and Mr.
`
`Colon
`
`saw
`
`the
`
`third
`
`base
`
`collapse.
`
`Mr.
`
`Colon
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`before
`
`Mr.
`
`Lozada's
`
`accident
`
`the
`
`team had
`
`complained
`
`about
`
`the
`
`condition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`field
`
`to the Village,
`
`umpires
`
`and
`
`league.
`
`See Witness
`
`4 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`Statements
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"D".
`
`Expert
`
`Report
`
`and
`
`Conclusions
`
`of C.J. Abraham,
`
`P.E.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`retained
`
`C.J. Abraham,
`
`P.E., DFE to conduct
`
`an inspection
`
`of
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`field
`
`and
`
`base
`
`and
`
`a scientific
`
`investigation
`
`into
`
`the
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`this
`
`accident.
`
`C.J. Abraham
`
`conducted
`
`an in-person
`
`inspection
`
`of
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`base
`
`as well
`
`as of
`
`the
`
`field
`
`and
`
`area where
`
`Mr.
`
`Lozada's
`
`accident
`
`occurred.
`
`Mr.
`
`Abraham's
`
`report
`
`is annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"E".
`
`the
`
`risk
`
`24.
`
`C.J. Abraham,
`
`P.E.
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`the VILLAGE
`
`unreasonably
`
`enhanced
`
`of
`
`injury
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`due
`
`to its
`
`failure
`
`to properly
`
`install
`
`and maintain
`
`the
`
`bases.
`
`He
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`the VILLAGE
`
`failed
`
`to follow
`
`the
`
`directions
`
`of
`
`the manufacturer
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to installing
`
`the
`
`female
`
`support
`
`system
`
`for
`
`the male
`
`counterpart
`
`of
`
`the base.
`
`As
`
`a result
`
`of
`
`the VILLAGE's
`
`failure
`
`to follow
`
`the
`
`installation
`
`instructions,
`
`the
`
`base
`
`collapsed
`
`into
`
`the
`
`softened
`
`clay
`
`under
`
`used
`
`the VILLAGE
`
`was
`
`surrounding
`
`the base.
`
`The
`
`clay material
`
`around
`
`and
`
`the base
`
`by
`
`of poor
`
`drainage
`
`and
`
`collected
`
`the water
`
`which
`
`destroyed
`
`the
`
`integrity
`
`of any
`
`support
`
`of
`
`the
`
`base.
`
`25.
`
`Likewise,
`
`C.J. Abraham
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`the VILLAGE
`
`and ABA failed
`
`to inspect
`
`the bases
`
`competently
`
`to verify
`
`that
`
`they
`
`were
`
`put
`
`together
`
`properly
`
`and
`
`stable.
`
`26.
`
`C.J. Abraham,
`
`P.E.
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`the VILLAGE's
`
`defective
`
`installation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`of
`
`on the
`
`field
`
`and
`
`in and
`
`around
`
`the
`
`base
`
`created
`
`an enhanced
`
`risk
`
`base
`
`and
`
`use
`
`clay material
`
`and
`
`hidden
`
`danger
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`which
`
`caused
`
`his
`
`injury.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`AND MEMORANDUM
`
`OF LAW IN OPPOSITION
`
`THE VILLAGE
`
`HAS NOT MET
`
`THE LEGAL
`JUDGEMENT
`
`STANDARD
`
`FOR SUMMARY
`
`27.
`
`"Summary
`
`judgment
`
`is a drastic
`
`remedy
`
`which
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be granted
`
`if
`
`there
`
`is a
`
`material
`
`and
`
`triable
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`presented
`
`(citation
`
`omitted).
`
`If
`
`there
`
`is any
`
`doubt
`
`as to the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`such
`
`an issue,
`
`or
`
`if
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`is 'arguable',
`
`a motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`should
`
`5 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`be denied
`
`(id)."
`
`DuLuc
`
`v. Resnick,
`
`224
`
`A.D.2d
`
`210,
`
`637 N.Y.S.2d
`
`146
`
`(1st Dep't
`
`1996)
`
`citing
`
`Sillman
`
`v. Twentieth
`
`Century-Fox,
`
`3 N.Y.2d
`
`395,
`
`404,
`
`165 N.Y.S.2d
`
`498
`
`(1957),
`
`reh'g
`
`denied,
`
`3 N.Y.
`
`941
`
`(1957).
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`record
`
`must
`
`be viewed
`
`"in
`
`the light
`
`most
`
`favorable
`
`to"
`
`the
`
`non-moving
`
`party
`
`(here
`
`to Mr.
`
`and Mrs.
`
`Lozada).
`
`Thanasoulis
`
`v. National
`
`AssI
`
`for
`
`the Specialty
`
`Foods
`
`Trade,
`
`226 A.D.2d
`
`227,
`
`640 N.Y.S.2d
`
`562
`
`(1st Dep't
`
`1996)
`
`(before
`
`and
`
`triable
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`is
`
`granting
`
`summary
`
`judgment,
`
`"it must
`
`clearly
`
`appear
`
`that
`
`no material
`
`presented").
`
`"[I]ssue
`
`finding,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`issue-determination,
`
`is the
`
`key
`
`to the
`
`procedure
`
`..."
`
`Id.
`
`28.
`
`It
`
`is respectfully
`
`submitted
`
`that
`
`neither
`
`Defendant
`
`is entitled
`
`to summary
`
`judgment
`
`because
`
`they
`
`failed
`
`to establish
`
`their
`
`lack
`
`of negligence
`
`regarding
`
`the happening
`
`of
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`accident.
`
`In fact
`
`it
`
`is respectfully
`
`submitted
`
`that
`
`in so much
`
`as the Village
`
`admittedly
`
`installed
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`base
`
`and prepares
`
`the
`
`field
`
`for
`
`play
`
`and
`
`had
`
`knowledge
`
`of water
`
`issues,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`unequivocally
`
`proves
`
`their
`
`culpability
`
`herein.
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DID NOT ASSUME
`THE IMPROPERLY
`
`THE HIDDEN,
`INSTALLED
`
`ENHANCED
`UNSTABLE
`
`RISK
`BASE
`
`POSED
`
`BY
`
`29.
`
`It
`
`is well
`
`settled
`
`that
`
`a person
`
`who
`
`voluntarily
`
`participates
`
`in a recreational
`
`activity
`
`such
`
`as softball
`
`herein
`
`"consents
`
`to those
`
`commonly
`
`appreciated
`
`risks
`
`which
`
`are inherent
`
`in and
`
`arise
`
`out
`
`of
`
`the
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`the
`
`sport
`
`generally
`
`and
`
`flow
`
`from
`
`such
`
`participation"
`
`Morgan
`
`v.
`
`State
`
`ofNew
`
`York,
`
`90 N.Y.2d
`
`471,
`
`484,
`
`662 N.Y.S.2d
`
`421,
`
`685 N.E.2d
`
`202
`
`[1997]
`
`. "Such
`
`a
`
`nor will
`
`be
`
`person,
`
`however,
`
`will
`
`not
`
`assume
`
`the
`
`risks
`
`of
`
`reckless
`
`or
`
`intentional
`
`conduct,
`
`a claim
`
`barred
`
`where
`
`the
`
`'conditions
`
`caused
`
`the
`
`by
`
`defendants'
`
`negligence
`
`are unique
`
`and
`
`created
`
`a
`
`dangerous
`
`condition
`
`over
`
`and
`
`above
`
`the
`
`usual
`
`dangers
`
`that
`
`are
`
`inherent'
`
`activity"
`
`in the
`
`Connolly
`
`v. Willard
`
`Mtn.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`143 A.D.3d
`
`1148,
`
`1148,
`
`40 N.Y.S.3d
`
`236
`
`[3d Dept.
`
`2016]
`
`. Thus,
`
`accepting
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`in the
`
`complaint
`
`and
`
`plaintiff
`
`s testimony
`
`and witness
`
`statements,
`
`as well
`
`as that
`
`of
`
`6 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`as true
`
`that
`
`the base
`
`collapsed
`
`into
`
`the
`
`ground,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is entitled
`
`to
`
`"the
`
`benefit
`
`of every
`
`possible
`
`favorable
`
`inference"
`
`and
`
`is not
`
`barred
`
`by
`
`the
`
`doctrine
`
`of assumption
`
`of
`
`risk.
`
`(Leon
`
`v. Martinez,
`
`84 N.Y.2d
`
`83,
`
`87,
`
`614 N.Y.S.2d
`
`972,
`
`638 N.E.2d
`
`511
`
`[1994|
`
`;see
`
`generally
`
`Connolly,
`
`143 A.D.3d
`
`at 1148,
`
`40 N.Y.S.3d
`
`236).
`
`30.
`
`Simply
`
`put,
`
`a "plaintiff
`
`will
`
`not
`
`be held
`
`to have
`
`assumed
`
`those
`
`risks
`
`that
`
`are not
`
`i.e.,
`
`not
`
`necessary'
`
`and
`
`sport."
`
`in the
`
`Lamey,
`
`594 N.Y.S.2d
`
`at
`
`inherent,
`
`M citing
`
`'ordinary
`
`Turcotte
`
`v. Fell,
`
`68 N.Y.2d
`
`432,
`
`510 N.Y.S.2d
`
`49 (1986)
`
`(recognizing
`
`most
`
`important
`
`factor
`
`is whether
`
`the
`
`risk
`
`is inherent
`
`in the
`
`activity).
`
`A collapsing
`
`base
`
`is not
`
`a risk
`
`inherent
`
`in
`
`softball
`
`as admitted
`
`by Mr.
`
`Bolger,
`
`the Umpire
`
`for
`
`the
`
`game whom testified
`
`he never
`
`experienced
`
`a collapsing
`
`base
`
`in his
`
`years
`
`of
`
`softball.
`
`Likewise,
`
`Mr.
`
`Fisenne
`
`admitted
`
`that
`
`if
`
`the
`
`base
`
`had
`
`been
`
`properly
`
`inserted
`
`into
`
`the
`
`receiver
`
`it could
`
`not
`
`collapse
`
`into
`
`the
`
`ground
`
`like
`
`it did
`
`is not
`
`one
`
`said
`
`to occur
`
`in a
`
`on the
`
`date
`
`of Plaintiff's
`
`accident.
`
`Hence,
`
`the
`
`defect
`
`herein
`
`regularly
`
`softball
`
`game
`
`and would
`
`not
`
`have
`
`occurred
`
`absent
`
`someone's
`
`negligence.
`
`31.
`
`The Court
`
`of Appeals,
`
`revisited
`
`"the
`
`duty
`
`of
`
`care
`
`owed
`
`by
`
`an owner
`
`or operator
`
`of
`
`an athletic
`
`facility
`
`to participants
`
`who
`
`are injured
`
`on premises
`
`while
`
`engaged
`
`in voluntary
`
`sports
`
`activities."
`
`Morgan
`
`v. State
`
`of New York,
`
`90 N.Y.2d
`
`471,
`
`1997 N.Y.
`
`LEXIS
`
`1400
`
`(1997),
`
`rearg.
`
`den.
`
`sub.
`
`nom.
`
`Chimerine
`
`v. World
`
`Champion
`
`John
`
`Chung
`
`Tae Kwon Do Inst.,
`
`1997
`
`LEXIS
`
`the
`
`four
`
`consolidated
`
`cases
`
`on appeal
`
`in
`
`3071
`
`(N.Y.
`
`Sept.
`
`18,
`
`1997).
`
`The
`
`lower
`
`Court
`
`in one
`
`of
`
`Siegel
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`"held
`
`that
`
`by
`
`electing
`
`to play
`
`tennis
`
`on a court
`
`inescapably
`
`known
`
`for
`
`a long
`
`time
`
`to have
`
`a torn
`
`net, Siegel
`
`[who
`
`tripped
`
`on the net]
`
`assumed
`
`a known
`
`risk
`
`that
`
`rendered
`
`his
`
`lawsuit
`
`susceptible
`
`to a defense
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment."
`
`Id
`
`at 7, sub
`
`nom.
`
`Siegel
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`89 N.Y.2d
`
`804,
`
`653 N.Y.S.2d
`
`281,
`
`675 N.E.2d
`
`1234
`
`(1996)
`
`rev'd
`
`sub
`
`nom. Morgan,
`
`90 N.Y.2d
`
`at 471.
`
`The
`
`Appellate
`
`Division
`
`affirmed
`
`and
`
`the Court
`
`7 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`of Appeals
`
`reversed.
`
`The Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`clearly
`
`stated:
`
`It cannot
`reasonably
`issue
`at
`the
`one
`here,
`sport
`at such
`facilities.
`and
`trafficking
`net
`dangerous
`an
`inherent
`purposes.
`condition
`occurring
`implicate
`and may
`added).
`(emphasis
`
`bouncing
`damaged
`
`balls
`or
`
`automatically
`judgment
`negligent
`maintenance
`Id
`at
`*22
`
`Rather,
`
`that
`
`nets
`part
`
`of
`
`indoor
`
`--
`
`of
`
`as
`
`such
`the
`
`of
`from
`
`allegedly
`not
`
`tennis
`be disputed
`courts,
`separating
`participation
`the
`are inherently
`and
`playing
`prevent
`In such
`interference
`circ*mstance,
`they
`or
`a torn
`But
`players
`on adjacent
`courts.
`-- or
`is by
`its nature
`other
`feature
`safety
`law
`for
`of a sport
`as a matter
`risk
`summary
`as and
`an allegedly
`it may
`constitute
`qualify
`property's
`in the
`course
`of any
`ordinary
`typical
`negligence
`principles.
`comparative
`
`32.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`agreed
`
`with
`
`plaintiffs
`
`argument
`
`"that
`
`because
`
`a torn
`
`net
`
`is not
`
`an
`
`'inherent'
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`game
`
`of
`
`tennis
`
`in and
`
`of
`
`he should
`
`not
`
`be deemed
`
`itself,
`
`legally
`
`to have
`
`assumed
`
`the
`
`risk
`
`of
`
`injuries
`
`caused
`
`by
`
`his
`
`tripping
`
`over
`
`it.
`
`[The
`
`Court's]
`
`precedents
`
`do not
`
`go so far
`
`as to exculpate
`
`sporting
`
`facility
`
`owners
`
`of
`
`this
`
`ordinary
`
`type
`
`of
`
`alleged
`
`negligence."
`
`Id.
`
`The
`
`Fourth
`
`Department
`
`addressed
`
`the
`
`same
`
`issue
`
`in Weller
`
`v. Colleges
`
`the Senecas.
`
`217
`
`A.D.2d
`
`280,
`
`635 N.Y.S.2d
`
`990
`
`(4th
`
`Dep't
`
`1995)
`
`as follows:
`
`of
`
`finding
`
`Although
`
`ill-advised,
`conclude
`
`constituting
`between
`conduct."
`
`s conduct
`plaintiff
`of
`upon
`prior
`his
`based
`that
`plaintiff
`did
`not
`assumption
`
`primary
`the
`trees
`[citations
`
`"is
`
`simply
`omitted].
`
`between
`riding
`experience
`assume
`the
`of
`a factor
`
`the
`
`after
`trees
`the
`alleged
`with
`risk
`a tree
`of hitting
`plaintiff
`s voluntary
`risk,
`relevant
`in the
`assessment
`
`been
`we
`
`have
`
`dark may
`desired
`pathway,
`than
`root.
`Rather
`decision
`to ride
`of
`culpable
`
`33. Also
`
`on point
`
`is Henig
`
`v. Hofstra
`
`University,
`
`553 N.Y.S.2d479
`
`[2d
`
`Dept.
`
`1990]
`
`wherein
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`injured
`
`while
`
`participating
`
`in an intramural
`
`football
`
`competition
`
`and
`
`alleged
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`permitted
`
`a dangerous
`
`and
`
`hazardous
`
`condition
`
`to exist
`
`on
`
`an athletic
`
`playing
`
`field
`
`by
`
`allowing
`
`the
`
`field
`
`to become
`
`uneven,
`
`rough,
`
`and
`
`full
`
`of holes.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`moved
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`arguing
`
`that
`
`its assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`defense
`
`was
`
`established
`
`as a
`
`matter
`
`of
`
`law.
`
`Specifically,
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`relied
`
`upon
`
`plaintiffs
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`which
`
`revealed
`
`that
`
`"his
`
`fall
`
`and
`
`subsequent
`
`injury
`
`had
`
`occurred
`
`while
`
`he was
`
`'accelerating
`
`and moving
`
`8 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`forward
`
`in order
`
`to tag
`
`the
`
`quarterback
`
`after
`
`the
`
`snap
`
`of
`
`the
`
`football.'
`
`"
`
`Id
`
`at 480.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`thus
`
`argued
`
`that
`
`"summary
`
`judgment
`
`is warranted
`
`whenever
`
`it
`
`is shown
`
`that
`
`the
`
`injury
`
`in
`
`question
`
`occurred
`
`during
`
`an athletic
`
`event,
`
`irrespective
`
`of whether
`
`a defect
`
`in the
`
`playing
`
`field
`
`attributed
`
`to the
`
`owner's
`
`negligence
`
`might
`
`have
`
`been
`
`a contributing
`
`factor."
`
`Id
`
`at 479.
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`recognized
`
`that
`
`the
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`defense
`
`is not
`
`so all-encompassing.
`
`This
`
`Court
`
`also
`
`held
`
`that
`
`they
`
`could
`
`not,
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`say
`
`that
`
`a hole
`
`several
`
`feet wide
`
`and
`
`several
`
`inches
`
`deep
`
`is
`
`necessarily
`
`"considered
`
`to be representative
`
`of
`
`the
`
`various
`
`hazards
`
`to which
`
`football
`
`players
`
`normally
`
`expose
`
`themselves."
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`was
`
`one
`
`for
`
`the jury
`
`to "take
`
`into
`
`account
`
`the magnitude
`
`of
`
`the
`
`hole,
`
`its
`
`location,
`
`and
`
`all other
`
`relevant
`
`circ*mstances."
`
`Id.
`
`34.
`
`"Participant
`
`are not
`
`deemed
`
`to have
`
`assumed
`
`risks
`
`resulting
`
`from
`
`the reckless
`
`or
`
`or
`
`risks
`
`that
`
`are concealed
`
`enhanced"
`
`v.
`
`intentional
`
`conduct
`
`of others,
`
`or unreasonably
`
`(Custodi
`
`Town
`
`of Amherst,
`
`20 N.Y.3d
`
`at 88,
`
`957 N.Y.S.2d
`
`268,
`
`980 N.E.2d
`
`933).
`
`35. Similarly,
`
`here,
`
`a collapsing,
`
`sinking,
`
`improperly
`
`installed,
`
`poorly
`
`maintained
`
`softball
`
`base
`
`cannot
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law be considered
`
`to be representative
`
`of a hazard
`
`to which
`
`a softball
`
`player
`
`regularly
`
`exposes
`
`him/herself.
`
`The Defendants
`
`have
`
`simply
`
`failed
`
`to come
`
`forth
`
`with
`
`a
`
`single
`
`case
`
`in which
`
`any Court
`
`has
`
`found
`
`that
`
`a collapsing,
`
`sunk
`
`base
`
`is a risk
`
`inherent
`
`to the
`
`game
`
`of
`
`is not
`
`the
`
`player
`
`slid
`
`into
`
`the base
`
`and was
`
`injured
`
`nor
`
`is this
`
`softball.
`
`This
`
`a case where
`
`a case where
`
`a player
`
`tripped
`
`in or on a visible
`
`condition
`
`on the
`
`field.
`
`Instead,
`
`as evidenced
`
`by
`
`decisions
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals,
`
`in accidents
`
`such
`
`as the
`
`one
`
`here,
`
`the
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`defense
`
`is not
`
`applicable.
`
`Rather,
`
`plaintiff
`
`s conduct,
`
`if at all
`
`should
`
`be addressed
`
`in the context
`
`of
`
`culpable
`
`conduct
`
`which
`
`while
`
`Plaintiff
`
`maintains
`
`there
`
`is none,
`
`would
`
`be a question
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`and the Village
`
`is not
`
`entitled
`
`to Summary
`
`Judgement.
`
`36. To
`
`establish
`
`plaintiffs
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk,
`
`a defendant
`
`must
`
`show
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`aware
`
`9 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`or dangerous
`
`condition
`
`and
`
`the
`
`resultant
`
`risk,
`
`although
`
`it
`
`is not
`
`necessary
`
`to
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`foresaw
`
`the
`
`exact manner
`
`in which
`
`his
`
`injury
`
`occurred
`
`Maddox
`
`v. City
`
`ofNew
`
`York,
`
`66 N.Y.2d
`
`270,
`
`496 N.Y.S.2d
`
`726,
`
`487 N.E.2d
`
`553(1985)
`
`37.
`
`Whether
`
`it can be concluded
`
`that
`
`a plaintiff
`
`made
`
`an informed
`
`estimate
`
`of
`
`the risks
`
`involved
`
`in an activity
`
`before
`
`deciding
`
`to participate
`
`depends
`
`on the
`
`openness
`
`and
`
`obviousness
`
`of
`
`plaintiffs
`
`and
`
`experience,
`
`plaintiffs
`
`own
`
`conduct
`
`under
`
`the
`
`the risk,
`
`background,
`
`skill,
`
`circ*mstances,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`nature
`
`of defendant's
`
`conduct1
`
`(see, Benitez
`
`v. New York
`
`City
`
`Bd.
`
`of
`
`Educ.,,
`
`73 N.Y.2d
`
`at 657-659,
`
`543 N.Y.S.2d
`
`29,
`
`541 N.E.2d
`
`29;
`
`Turcotte
`
`v. Fell,
`
`supra,_68
`
`N.Y.2d
`
`at 440,
`
`442,
`
`510 N.Y.S.2d
`
`49,
`
`502 N.E.2d
`
`964; Maddox
`
`v. City
`
`ofNew
`
`York,
`
`supra,_66
`
`N.Y.2d
`
`at 277-278,
`
`496 N.Y.S.2d
`
`726,
`
`487 N.E.2d
`
`553).
`
`Perhaps
`
`the most
`
`important
`
`factor,
`
`however,
`
`is whether
`
`the risk
`
`is inherent
`
`in the
`
`activity
`
`(Owen
`
`v. R.J.S.
`
`Safety
`
`Equip.,
`
`supra,_7.9
`
`N.Y.2d
`
`582 N.Y.S.2d
`
`998,
`
`591 N.E.2d
`
`1184;
`
`Turcotte
`
`v. Fell,
`
`supra,
`
`68 N.Y.2d
`
`at 443-
`
`at 970,
`
`444,
`
`510 N.Y.S.2d
`
`49,
`
`502 N.E.2d
`
`964; Maddox
`
`v. City
`
`ofNew
`
`York,
`
`supra,
`
`66 N.Y.2d
`
`at 277,
`
`496 N.Y.S.2d
`
`726,
`
`487 N.E.2d
`
`553).
`
`38.
`
`In the
`
`instant
`
`case,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`cannot
`
`be said
`
`to have
`
`appreciated
`
`and
`
`understood
`
`the
`
`risks
`
`of a collapsing
`
`base which
`
`would
`
`sink
`
`into
`
`a hole
`
`hidden
`
`underneath
`
`it. Nor
`
`could
`
`he have
`
`conceivably
`
`known
`
`that
`
`the
`
`base was
`
`installed
`
`improperly
`
`and
`
`collected
`
`water
`
`underneath
`
`it due
`
`to the VILLAGE's
`
`use of
`
`improper
`
`packing
`
`and
`
`grading
`
`material.
`
`Likewise,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`could
`
`not
`
`didn't
`
`field
`
`or
`
`and would
`
`not
`
`presume
`
`that
`
`the VILLAGE
`
`routinely
`
`maintain
`
`the
`
`bases
`
`on the
`
`know
`
`that
`
`they
`
`were
`
`left
`
`out
`
`on the
`
`field
`
`for
`
`the whole
`
`season
`
`without
`
`more
`
`than
`
`a visual
`
`inspection.
`
`In so much
`
`as it was Mr.
`
`Lozada's
`
`first
`
`time
`
`ever
`
`playing
`
`at
`
`this
`
`field
`
`he could
`
`not
`
`and would
`
`not
`
`be familiar
`
`with
`
`the make-up
`
`of
`
`the
`
`field
`
`or stability
`
`of
`
`the
`
`bases
`
`and
`
`ground
`
`underneath
`
`it.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`as he merely
`
`stepped
`
`on the
`
`inside
`
`corner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`base with
`
`his
`
`foot
`
`10 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`while
`
`attempting
`
`to run
`
`home
`
`(rather
`
`than
`
`some
`
`forceful
`
`movement
`
`such
`
`as a slide)
`
`his
`
`own
`
`conduct
`
`would
`
`not
`
`have
`
`alerted
`
`him to the
`
`possibility
`
`that
`
`his
`
`foot
`
`and
`
`the
`
`base would
`
`sink
`
`into
`
`the
`
`ground.
`
`See Plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`affidavit
`
`of C.J. Abraham,
`
`P.E.
`
`in opposition
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"F".
`
`39.
`
`Likewise,
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`has held
`
`that
`
`the
`
`doctrine
`
`of primary
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`"does
`
`not
`
`exculpate
`
`a landowner
`
`from
`
`liability
`
`for
`
`ordinary
`
`negligence
`
`in maintaining
`
`a
`
`premises."
`
`Custodi
`
`v. Town
`
`of Amherst,
`
`20 N.Y.3d
`
`83,
`
`89,
`
`957 N.Y.S.2d
`
`268,
`
`980 N.E.2d
`
`93.3.; Cotty
`
`v. Town
`
`of Southampton,
`
`64 A.D.3d
`
`251,
`
`257,
`
`880 N.Y.S.2d
`
`656).
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`doctrine
`
`does
`
`not
`
`necessarily
`
`absolve
`
`landowners
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`where
`
`they
`
`have
`
`allowed
`
`certain
`
`defects,
`
`such
`
`as a hole
`
`in a net
`
`in an indoor
`
`tennis
`
`court
`
`or
`
`in the
`
`instant
`
`matter
`
`a collapsing,
`
`unstable
`
`base
`
`and
`
`poor
`
`drainage,
`
`to persist.
`
`See Morgan
`
`v. State
`
`of New York,
`
`90 N.Y.2d
`
`at 488,
`
`662
`
`N.Y.S.2d
`
`421,
`
`685 N.E.2d
`
`202).
`
`bar
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`the
`
`40.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`cannot
`
`liability
`
`law because
`
`record
`
`evidence
`
`demonstrates
`
`that
`
`the
`
`confluence
`
`of dangers
`
`at Randall
`
`Park
`
`Field
`
`2 and base
`
`thereat
`
`that
`
`caused
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`fall,
`
`e.g.
`
`the
`
`improper
`
`installation
`
`of
`
`the base,
`
`absence
`
`of
`
`the
`
`receiver
`
`for
`
`the base,
`
`use
`
`of
`
`improper
`
`field
`
`material,
`
`and
`
`collapse
`
`thereof
`
`resulted
`
`from
`
`negligent
`
`maintenance
`
`and
`
`installation
`
`as opposed
`
`to inherent
`
`risks
`
`of
`
`softball,
`
`unreasonably
`
`amplified
`
`of
`
`over
`
`and
`
`above
`
`the
`
`usual
`
`encountered
`
`at softball
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s risk
`
`falling,
`
`and was
`
`dangers
`
`fields.
`
`See e.g. Morgan
`
`v. State,
`
`90 N.Y.2d
`
`471,
`
`485
`
`(1997)(rejecting
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`defense
`
`where
`
`a tennis
`
`player
`
`tripped
`
`on a torn
`
`net
`
`separating
`
`courts
`
`because
`
`a torn
`
`net was
`
`not
`
`"automatically"
`
`an inherent
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the game
`
`of
`
`tennis
`
`but
`
`rather
`
`a dangerous
`
`condition
`
`occurring
`
`in the
`
`ordinary
`
`course
`
`of an owner's
`
`property
`
`maintenance);
`
`Owen
`
`v. R.J.S.
`
`Safety
`
`Equip,
`
`79
`
`N.Y.2D
`
`967
`
`(1992)
`
`( rejecting
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`defense
`
`where
`
`expert
`
`affidavits
`
`indicated
`
`the
`
`11 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`contour
`
`of a race
`
`track's
`
`retaining
`
`wall,
`
`design
`
`of
`
`its guardrail
`
`and
`
`placement
`
`of barrels
`
`near
`
`the
`
`guardrail,
`
`created
`
`a dangerous
`
`condition
`
`"over
`
`and
`
`above
`
`the
`
`usual
`
`dangers
`
`that
`
`are inherent
`
`in
`
`auto
`
`racing");
`
`Kaplan
`
`v. Lucille
`
`Roberts
`
`Health
`
`Clubs
`
`Inc.,
`
`63 A.D.3d
`
`470,
`
`471
`
`(1st Dept.
`
`2009)(finding
`
`factual
`
`issues
`
`precluding
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`where
`
`absence
`
`of
`
`stabilizing
`
`grips
`
`from
`
`the
`
`the
`
`bottom
`
`of aerobic
`
`boards
`
`unreasonably
`
`increased
`
`the
`
`risk
`
`in using
`
`boards);
`
`Rivera
`
`Jack
`
`LaLanne
`
`Fitness
`
`Ctrs.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`269 A.D.2d
`
`228,
`
`229
`
`(1st Dep't.
`
`2000)
`
`(rejecting
`
`assumption
`
`risk
`
`defense
`
`where
`
`plaintiff
`
`tripped
`
`over
`
`ripples
`
`in a carpet
`
`at a health
`
`club
`
`because
`
`the ripples
`
`v.
`
`of
`
`could
`
`be found
`
`to be a "defective
`
`condition
`
`occurring
`
`in the
`
`ordinary
`
`course
`
`of
`
`the property's
`
`maintenance"
`
`the
`
`of
`
`indoor
`
`track").
`
`it
`
`is clear
`
`instead
`
`of an "inherent
`
`risk
`
`of
`
`sport
`
`Hence,
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`have
`
`failed
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`assumption
`
`of
`
`risk
`
`applies
`
`herein
`
`and
`
`summary
`
`judgement
`
`for Defendants
`
`is not warranted.
`
`PLAINTIFF'S
`
`PURPORTED
`
`OF NEGLIGENCE
`WAIVER
`UNEFORCEABLE
`
`IS VOID
`
`AND
`
`41. General
`
`Obligations
`
`Law § 5-326
`
`provides,
`
`in pertinent
`
`part,
`
`that:
`
`* agreement
`in or
`in connection
`Every
`or
`of admission
`ticket
`application,
`membership
`* place
`*
`*
`owner
`or operator
`the
`between
`of any
`such
`user
`of
`the
`establishment
`and
`similar
`facilities,
`or operator
`or other
`compensation
`receives
`a fee
`which
`exempts
`said
`owner
`or operator
`the
`from
`liability
`be void
`as against
`public
`and wholly
`unenforceable.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`policy
`
`of
`
`the General
`
`for
`
`with
`any
`similar
`writing,
`of amusem*nt
`pursuant
`the
`use
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`contract,
`entered
`or
`recreation,
`such
`to which
`such
`of
`* shall
`
`into
`
`or
`owner
`
`to
`
`facilities,
`be deemed
`
`42.
`
`Section
`
`5-326
`
`Obligations
`
`Law voids
`
`waivers
`
`releases
`
`between
`
`the
`
`participant
`
`and
`
`owner
`
`operator
`
`of a recreational
`
`facility
`
`where
`
`it
`
`is shown
`
`that
`
`the
`
`participant
`
`paid
`
`a fee
`
`to use
`
`the recreational
`
`facility
`
`and
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`operator
`
`of
`
`the
`
`facility
`
`received
`
`a fee
`
`for
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`facility.
`
`43.
`
`Here
`
`it
`
`is undisputed
`
`that Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`paid
`
`Defendant,
`
`ABA,
`
`a two
`
`hundred
`
`dollar
`
`12 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`league
`
`fee.
`
`(Exhibit
`
`"A",
`
`Pg.
`
`12, 1. 10-17)
`
`In turn,
`
`the
`
`league
`
`used
`
`a portion
`
`of
`
`those
`
`fees
`
`to
`
`secure
`
`the Ballfield
`
`Permit
`
`for Randall
`
`Park.
`
`See
`
`copy
`
`of
`
`the Ballfield
`
`Permit
`
`with
`
`fees
`
`listed
`
`annexed
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"G ". With
`
`respect
`
`to the waiver,
`
`General
`
`Obligations
`
`Law
`
`§ 5-326
`
`such
`
`agreement
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`in connection
`
`with,
`
`as relevant
`
`here,
`
`the
`
`payment
`
`of a fee
`
`to enter
`
`a place
`
`of
`
`recreation
`
`irrespective
`
`of whether
`
`the
`
`fee was
`
`paid
`
`directly
`
`to the
`
`voids
`
`any
`
`"user"
`
`by a
`
`recreational
`
`facility
`
`or a league
`
`which
`
`used
`
`the
`
`fee
`
`to obtain
`
`the
`
`use thereof.
`
`Knight
`
`v. Holland.
`
`148 A.D.3d
`
`1726,
`
`1727,
`
`51 N.Y.S.3d
`
`749,
`
`751
`
`(4d'
`
`Dept
`
`2017)
`
`As
`
`such,
`
`General
`
`Obligations
`
`Law 5-326
`
`applies
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`herein
`
`and
`
`the purported
`
`waiver
`
`which
`
`does
`
`not
`
`even
`
`contain
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`formal
`
`signature
`
`is void.
`
`See Scotti
`
`v. Tough
`
`Mudder
`
`Incorporated,
`
`63 Misc.
`
`3d 843,
`
`97 N.Y.S.3d
`
`825
`
`(Sup.
`
`Ct.,
`
`Kings
`
`County
`
`2019)
`
`(Participants
`
`who
`
`were
`
`injured
`
`during
`
`an
`
`obstacle
`
`action
`
`against
`
`event
`
`organizer.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`ruled
`
`that GOL
`
`course
`
`event
`
`brought
`
`§ 5-326
`
`rendered
`
`unenforceable
`
`an agreement
`
`to exempt
`
`organizer
`
`from
`
`liability,
`
`where
`
`participants
`
`paid
`
`a fee to use
`
`the
`
`course,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`a place
`
`of
`
`recreation,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`event
`
`was
`
`a rigorous
`
`athletic
`
`competition
`
`requiring
`
`training.)
`
`44.
`
`Directly
`
`on point
`
`was
`
`the Third
`
`Department's
`
`holding
`
`in Williams
`
`v. City
`
`of
`
`Albany,
`
`271 A.D.2d
`
`855,
`
`706 N.Y.S.2d
`
`240
`
`(3rd
`
`Dept.
`
`2000).
`
`In Williams
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`injured
`
`while
`
`participating
`
`in a flag
`
`football
`
`league
`
`game
`
`in Lincoln
`
`Park
`
`in the City
`
`of Albany.
`
`Football
`
`Inc. was
`
`a for-profit
`
`corporation
`
`Defendant
`
`Capital
`
`District
`
`Flag
`
`engaged
`
`in operating
`
`a
`
`regional
`
`sports
`
`recreation
`
`league
`
`that was
`
`comprised
`
`of approximately
`
`55 flag
`
`football
`
`teams,
`
`each
`
`of which
`
`paid
`
`a $550
`
`fee to compete
`
`in the
`
`league.
`
`Capital
`
`District
`
`Flag
`
`Football
`
`Inc.
`
`arranged
`
`for
`
`the
`
`use
`
`of
`
`six
`
`playing
`
`fields
`
`in Albany
`
`County,
`
`Renesselaer
`
`County
`
`and
`
`Schenectady
`
`County.
`
`The
`
`plaintiff
`
`signed
`
`a release
`
`in which
`
`he waived
`
`his
`
`right
`
`to seek
`
`legal
`
`redress
`
`for
`
`any
`
`injuries
`
`resulting
`
`from
`
`his
`
`participation
`
`in the game
`
`by
`
`reason
`
`of any
`
`negligence
`
`13 of 21
`
`

`

`FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/30/2022 01:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 139
`
`INDEX NO. 604836/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/30/2022
`
`of Capital
`
`District
`
`Flag
`
`Football
`
`Inc.
`
`in relation
`
`to the
`
`condition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`premises.
`
`During
`
`the
`
`course
`
`of
`
`the
`
`game,
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`fell
`
`on a large,
`
`jagged
`
`piece
`
`of glass,
`
`which
`
`became
`
`embedded
`
`in his
`
`knee.
`
`The
`
`plaintiff
`
`commenced
`
`an action
`
`against
`
`Capital
`
`District
`
`Flag
`
`Football
`
`Inc.
`
`claiming
`
`that
`
`they
`
`were
`
`negligent
`
`in failing
`
`to provide
`
`a safe
`
`playing
`
`field.
`
`Following
`
`the joinder
`
`of
`
`issue.
`
`Capital
`
`District
`
`Flag
`
`Football
`
`Inc. moved
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`on the
`
`ground
`
`that
`
`the
`
`action
`
`executed
`
`the plaintiff.
`
`reversed
`
`the
`
`was
`
`barred
`
`by
`
`a release
`
`by
`
`The
`
`Third
`
`Department
`
`lower
`
`Court
`
`and
`
`denied
`
`summary
`
`judgement
`
`and
`
`held
`
`in pertinent
`
`part
`
`that General
`
`Obligations
`
`law statute
`
`is not
`
`limited
`
`merely
`
`to the
`
`person
`
`or entity
`
`who
`
`pays
`
`the
`
`fee,
`
`but
`
`it
`
`is also
`
`applicable
`
`to those
`
`individuals
`
`who
`
`use
`
`the
`
`facility
`
`as a result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`fee if
`
`it can be shown
`
`that
`
`the
`
`owner
`
`or operator
`
`of
`
`such
`
`a facility
`
`received
`
`a fee.
`
`"The
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`has made
`
`clear
`
`its disinclination
`
`to engage
`
`in a unduly
`
`restrictive
`
`interpretation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`statute."
`
`Willoams
`
`v.
`
`City
`
`of Albany,
`
`271
`
`A.D.2d
`
`855,
`
`856-857
`
`(3"l Dept
`
`2000).
`
`45.
`
`In fact
`
`in so much
`
`as Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`never
`
`testified
`
`or confirmed
`
`that
`
`he read
`
`or sign
`
`the purported
`
`waiver
`
`form
`
`Defendants
`
`are relying
`
`on it cannot
`
`justify
`
`the
`
`granting
`
`of
`
`summary
`
`judgment.
`
`Mr.
`
`Lozada
`
`was
`
`specifically
`
`asked
`
`at his
`
`50-H
`
`when
`
`shown
`
`the waiver
`
`whether
`
`he
`
`recognized
`
`it
`
`and
`
`he stated
`
`that
`
`he didn't
`
`recall.
`
`In fact
`
`he stated
`
`that
`
`he didn't
`
`recall
`
`the waiver
`
`or executing
`
`it.
`
`(Exhibit
`
`"A",
`
`Pg.
`
`50,
`
`1.5-25;
`
`Pg.
`
`51,
`
`1.1-18)
`
`The Defendants
`
`have
`
`fai