Majority
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered June 30, 1994, as, after a jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it on the issue of liability.
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Assumption of the risk is not an absolute defense, but rather, "generally [creates] a question of fact for a jury” (Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d 270 , 279; see, Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650 , 657; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432 , 439; Baker v Briarcliff School Dist., 205 AD2d 652 , 655; Lamey v Foley, 188 AD2d 157 ,164). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the extent to which, if any, the plaintiff assumed
We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Maddox v. City of New York 66 NY2d 270 at 279 p. 474
- Benitez v. New York City Board of Education 73 NY2d 650 at 657 p. 474
- Turcotte v. Fell 68 NY2d 432 at 439 p. 474
- Baker v. Briarcliff School District 205 AD2d 652 at 655 p. 474
- Lamey v. Foley 188 AD2d 157 at 164 p. 474