Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
LAURA V., etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. CATAMOUNT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered February 9, 2018, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing the complaint as against the individual defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendants Catamount Development Corporation and Catamount Ski Area (collectively Catamount) failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the doctrine of assumption of the risk bars plaintiffs' claims (see Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 279, 496 N.Y.S.2d 726, 487 N.E.2d 553 [1985]; Rigano v. Coram Bus Serv., 226 A.D.2d 274, 275, 641 N.Y.S.2d 285 [1st Dept. 1996] ). Although infant plaintiff's ski instructor at the time of the accident testified that infant plaintiff fell out of the chairlift after she suddenly propelled herself out of the chair, infant plaintiff testified that the incident happened after she was accidently pushed off the lift (see Hope v. Holiday Mtn. Corp., 123 A.D.3d 1274, 1275–1276, 999 N.Y.S.2d 211 [3d Dept. 2014]; de Lacy v. Catamount Dev. Corp., 302 A.D.2d 735, 755 N.Y.S.2d 484 [3d Dept. 2003] ). The conflicting testimony as to how the accident occurred precludes granting Catamount's motion for summary judgment (see Nyala C. v. Miniventures Child Care Dev. Ctr., Inc., 133 A.D.3d 467, 18 N.Y.S.3d 863 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
However, dismissal of the complaint as against the individual defendants is warranted. That portion of defendants' motion was unopposed by plaintiffs, and there is no evidence that the individual defendants personally participated in any malfeasance or misfeasance constituting an affirmative tortious act that proximately caused infant plaintiff's injuries (see Palomo v. 175th St. Realty Corp., 101 A.D.3d 579, 957 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
We have considered Catamount's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 8098
Decided: January 15, 2019
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)