Irish v. Deep Hollow Ltd.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tadmor v. New York Jiu Jitsu Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Tadmor v. New York Jiu Jitsu Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Joseph v. New York Racing Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Haggerty v. Northern Dutchess Hosp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- SIMONE PRYCE and DAVID PRYCE v. TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, d/b/a New York Sports Club (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Vanborkulo v. Keller's Motor Sports, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Eslin v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Lipari v. Babylon Riding Center, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Kinara v. Jamaica Bay Riding Academy, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Morella v. Fletcher Farm At The Ketcham Homestead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated July 14, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The plaintiff testified that prior to going horseback riding with her friends at a ranch owned by the defendant Deep Hollow Ltd. she informed the trail guide who was to lead the group about her inexperience in the sport. The guide assured the plaintiff that there would be no problem because the horses would be kept to a walking pace. Although the ride started at a walking pace, the plaintiff stated that the guide later caused the pace to be increased to a faster pace known as a “canter”, at which time the plaintiff fell and sustained injury.
It is well settled that “by engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant 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 of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484; see also, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432; Rubenstein v Woodstock Riding Club, 208 AD2d 1160). However, participants will not be deemed to have consented to
In the case at bar, there exists a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff assumed the increased risk of riding on a horse at a cantering pace after being told that the horse would only travel at a walking pace. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was improperly granted (see, Morgan v State of New York, supra, at 488-489). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.