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.
Christina BOATENG, respondent, v. MOTORCYCLE SAFETY SCHOOL, INC., appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated July 13, 2007, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff enrolled in a two-day motorcycle riding course offered and conducted by the defendant, paid a contract fee for the course, and signed a liability release (hereinafter the release). The course was held on the premises of Yonkers Raceway (hereinafter the raceway) and included a classroom lecture, a written exam, and outdoor riding exercises on a paved area behind the racetrack. On the second day of the course, the outdoor lessons allegedly were held during a rainstorm, and the plaintiff fell from a motorcycle while performing a riding exercise.
The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that the defendant was negligent, inter alia, in allowing her to operate a motorcycle in the rain without proper instruction. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiff's action, which was based solely on a theory of ordinary negligence, was barred by the terms of the release. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. We reverse.
The defendant made a prima facie showing that the release signed by the plaintiff was not void under General Obligations Law § 5-326 (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). General Obligations Law § 5-326 prohibits an owner or operator of a recreational facility from enforcing a release given by an individual who has paid it a fee or other compensation for the use of the facility (see Petrie v. Bridgehampton Rd. Races Corp., 248 A.D.2d 605, 670 N.Y.S.2d 504). Here, the defendant submitted evidence that the raceway premises, which the defendant leased to conduct its classes, were used for instructional, not recreational or amusement, purposes (see Lemoine v. Cornell Univ., 2 A.D.3d 1017, 1018-1019, 769 N.Y.S.2d 313; Baschuk v. Diver's Way Scuba, 209 A.D.2d 369, 370, 618 N.Y.S.2d 428; cf. Debell v. Wellbridge Club Mgt. Inc., 40 A.D.3d 248, 249-250, 835 N.Y.S.2d 170; Bacchiocchi v. Ranch Parachute Club, 273 A.D.2d 173, 175-176, 710 N.Y.S.2d 54). Moreover, the defendant made an initial showing that the contract fee paid by the plaintiff constituted tuition for a course of instruction and not a use fee for use of a recreational facility as contemplated by the statute (see Fusco v. Now & Zen, 294 A.D.2d 466, 467, 742 N.Y.S.2d 650; Baschuk v. Diver's Way Scuba, 209 A.D.2d at 370, 618 N.Y.S.2d 428). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
Further, we agree with the defendant that the terms of the release are enforceable. The language of the release clearly and unequivocally expresses the intention of the parties to relieve the defendant of liability for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of its negligence (see Lago v. Krollage, 78 N.Y.2d 95, 99-100, 571 N.Y.S.2d 689, 575 N.E.2d 107; Gross v. Sweet, 49 N.Y.2d 102, 107-108, 424 N.Y.S.2d 365, 400 N.E.2d 306; Castellanos v. Nassau/Suffolk Dek Hockey, 232 A.D.2d 354, 355, 648 N.Y.S.2d 143; Baschuk v. Diver's Way Scuba, 209 A.D.2d at 370, 618 N.Y.S.2d 428). Moreover, the release is similarly clear in reciting that the plaintiff was aware of and assumed the risks associated with participating in the defendant's motorcycle riding course (see Castellanos v. Nassau/Suffolk Dek Hockey, 232 A.D.2d at 355, 648 N.Y.S.2d 143; Chieco v. Paramarketing, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 462, 463, 643 N.Y.S.2d 668).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
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.
Decided: May 13, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)