Case Title: Ziegelmeyer v United States Olympic Comm.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2006-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Ziegelmeyer v United States Olympic Comm.


2006 NY Slip Op 08644 [7 NY3d 893]


November 21, 2006


Court of Appeals


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


As corrected through Wednesday, January 24, 2007



[*1]
Nicole L. Ziegelmeyer, Appellant,vUnited States Olympic Committee et al., Respondents.Decided November 21, 2006



Ziegelmeyer v United States Olympic Comm., 28 AD3d 1019, affirmed.





APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL


Harris Beach PLLC, Albany (A. Vincent Buzzard, Mark J. McCarthy and Kevin T. Bezio of counsel), for appellant.
Roemer Wallens & Mineaux LLP, Albany (Matthew J. Kelly of counsel), for United States Olympic Committee, respondent.
Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany (Leah W. Casey of counsel), for United States Speedskating and another, respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, a short-track Olympic speedskater, was injured when she fell on the ice during practice and hit the boards surrounding the rink. Although safety pads had been placed on the boards, plaintiff fell in such a way that her feet lifted the pads, causing her hip to strike the boards directly. [*2]Because plaintiff was aware of the exact manner in which the safety pads had been set up on the day of her accident, the Appellate Division correctly held that plaintiff had assumed the risk of her injuries, and properly affirmed the Supreme Court order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471 [1997]; see also Trevett v City of Little Falls, 6 NY3d 884 [2006]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.