Jose Hildago, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Anthony Van Dunk, doing business as “Metropolitan Cycling Association,” et al., Defendants.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Alejandro CHITTICK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Jose Hildago, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USA CYCLING INC., doing business as “U.S.C.F.,” “N.O.R.B.A.” “U.S. Pro,” Defendant-Respondent, Anthony Van Dunk, doing business as “Metropolitan Cycling Association,” et al., Defendants.

Decided: September 23, 2008

TOM, J.P., WILLIAMS, McGUIRE, FREEDMAN, JJ. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for Alejandro Chittick, appellant. David J. DeToffol, New York, for David Fields, appellant. Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, New York (Steven H. Rosenfeld of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered October 3, 2007, which granted the motion of defendant USA Cycling, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The record establishes that USA Cycling merely sanctioned, i.e., lent its name to, the bicycle race during which plaintiff spectators were struck by the three-wheel scooter operating as the rear pace vehicle.   Since it had no control over the race, USA Cycling had no duty to prevent any negligence involved therein (see e.g. Mauro v. City of Yonkers, 282 A.D.2d 720, 724 N.Y.S.2d 194 [2001] ).   The fact that USA Cycling provided its rule book to defendant Van Dunk, the organizer of the race, did not impose a duty upon USA Cycling to enforce any of the rules therein (see id.).   Nor does the fact raise an inference as to the existence of a principal-agency relationship between USA Cycling and Van Dunk.