Majority
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The County of Suffolk failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that the infant plaintiff, then seven years old, assumed the risk of playing on the subject monkey bar apparatus (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. 64 NY2d 851 , 853 [1985]; Rivera v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 19 AD3d 394 [2005]; Douglas v John Hus Moravian Church of Brooklyn, Inc., 8 AD3d 327 , 329 [2004]; Trainer v Camp Hadar Hatorah, 297 AD2d 731 , 732 [2002]). Thus, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Basmajian v Min Wang, 12 AD3d 471 [2004]; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437 , 438 [1996]).
The County’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 at 853 p. 1066
- Rivera v. Board of Education of Yonkers 19 AD3d 394 p. 1066
- Douglas v. John Hus Moravian Church of Brooklyn, Inc. 8 AD3d 327 at 329 p. 1066
- Basmajian v. Min Wang 12 AD3d 471 p. 1066
- Mariaca-Olmos v. Mizrhy 226 AD2d 437 at 438 p. 1066