The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion #001) numbered 45-54, 86-95, 97, 104-106; and (Motion #002) numbered 56-85, 96, 98-103 were read on this motion.

This personal injury action arises out of an incident that occurred on January 7, 2023, at approximately 9:00 p.m., during a Catholic Youth Organization ("C.Y.O.") basketball game held at the Holy Rosary gymnasium, located on or adjacent to Jerome Avenue in Staten Island, New York.

At the time of the incident, plaintiff A.S. was sixteen years old and a junior in high [*2]school (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 53 at p. 7, lines 13—15; p. 8, lines 11—13; p. 11, lines 17—25). He was a participant in the Holy Rosary C.Y.O. basketball program and a member of a high school-aged team organized by himself and his friends, and coached by Steven Pastorelli (see id at p. 41, line 25 to p. 42, line 11; p. 42, lines 12—24; p. 44, lines 2—16). A.S. testified that he began playing with the team in December 2022 (see id, p. 45, lines 14—22; p. 49, line 25 to p. 50, line 7).

Father Michael Martine, pastor of Holy Rosary Church, testified that the gymnasium was owned by the parish and physically connected to the school building (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 64 at p. 14, lines 3—18). He confirmed that basketball practices and games were conducted in the gym as part of the parish's C.Y.O. program and were under parish oversight (see id, p. 16-, line 16 to p. 19, line 11). Father Martine acknowledged that the gym roof had been leaking for years prior to January 2023 and that the problem had not been fully repaired (see id at p. 24, lines 6-10; p. 28, lines 3-6; p. 30, lines 11-24). He also confirmed that buckets or towels were sometimes used to manage the water when it leaked onto the gym floor during basketball events (see id, p. 78, lines 10-21). He did not attend the January 7, 2023 game (see id, p. 79, lines 18-25).

A.S. testified that he personally observed water dripping from the gym ceiling during the team's very first practice in December 2022 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 53 at p. 50, line 24 to p. 51, line 13). He saw a towel placed on the floor beneath the leak, which was already wet, and used it to dry the area before the team began practice (see id, p. 51, line 25 to p. 53, line 2). He understood that water made the floor "dangerously slippery" (see id, p. 53, lines 3—18).

He further testified that in at least two of the team's five practices and in two of three games prior to the January 7, 2023 incident, he observed water leaking onto the court from the ceiling (see id, p. 56, line 23 to p. 58, line 14). He recalled that players—including himself—had slipped on wet spots created by these leaks on at least three separate occasions (see id, p. 58, line 20 to p. 59, line 8).

On the night of January 7, 2023, A.S. testified that during the first half of the game, he witnessed a teammate slip and fall on a wet area of the gym floor (see id, p. 62, line 13 to p. 63, line 14). A towel was again used to dry the area (see id, p. 63, line 15 to p. 64, line 5). During the second half, A.S. himself slipped while attempting to make a cut with the ball (see id, p. 64, line 11 to p. 65, line 9). The game was stopped, he was helped off the court, and the wet area was again wiped down with a towel (see id, p. 65, lines 10—21). He remained on the bench for approximately ten minutes (see id, p. 67, line 14 to p. 68, line 3), and then voluntarily reentered the game. Shortly thereafter, he slipped a second time and sustained an injury to his right knee (see id, p. 68, line 20 to p. 70, line 6).

Plaintiffs commenced this action on August 15, 2023, asserting negligence based on Defendants' alleged failure to maintain the gymnasium in a reasonably safe condition. In their Verified Bill of Particulars dated March 18, 2024, plaintiffs specifically attributed the injury to a hazardous floor condition caused by a recurring roof leak. Defendants denied liability, asserting, among other defenses, that Plaintiff A.S. voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by choosing to play under a known and recurring hazardous condition.

The Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212, contending that Plaintiff A.S.'s claims are barred under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The Court's task is to determine, based on the undisputed evidentiary record, whether Plaintiff assumed a risk [*3]that negated Defendants' duty of care as a matter of law.

Although CPLR § 1411 abolished assumption of risk as a complete bar to recovery, the doctrine continues to apply in limited contexts, most notably where plaintiffs engage in sporting or recreational activities. The rationale, as reiterated by the Court of Appeals in Trupia v. Lake George Cent. School Dist., 14 NY3d 392 [2010], is that "by freely assuming a known risk, a plaintiff commensurately negates any duty on the part of the defendant to safeguard him or her from the risk." This principle has its roots in Turcotte v. Fell, 68 NY2d 432 [1986], and has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent appellate decisions.

Under this doctrine, "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" (Asprou v. Hellenic Orthodox Community of Astoria, 185 AD3d 641 [2d Dept 2020], quoting Morgan v. State of New York, 90 NY2d 471 [1997]). The risks encompassed by the doctrine include those that are "known, apparent, natural, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation" (Mamati v. City of NY Parks & Recreation, 123 AD3d 671 [2d Dept 2014]).

Significantly, the doctrine also extends to conditions that are "less than optimal" (Bukowski v. Clarkson Univ., 19 NY3d 353 [2012]), provided that such risks are not concealed or unreasonably increased (Sykes v. County of Erie, 94 NY2d 912 [2000]). "Participants are not deemed to have assumed risks that are concealed or unreasonably increased over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport" (M.P. v. Mineola Union Free Sch. Dist., 166 AD3d 953 [2d Dept 2018]). The touchstone of the analysis is whether the plaintiff knowingly undertook the risk of injury from the specific condition that caused the harm.

Here, the record establishes through Plaintiff A.S.'s own deposition testimony that he was aware, prior to the date of the incident, of the specific hazard that caused his injury—namely, the presence of water on the gymnasium floor due to a recurring roof leak. A.S. testified that he observed water dripping from the ceiling during the team's very first practice in December 2022, and that he saw towels placed to absorb the water. He personally used towels to dry wet spots before practices and games. He testified that he understood the condition rendered the floor "dangerously slippery," and acknowledged that players—including himself—had slipped during prior practices and games because of water accumulation.

In addition, A.S. testified that on January 7, 2023—the date of his injury—he observed a teammate slip on the same wet court surface during the first half of the game. He himself slipped and fell once during the second half of the game, at which point he was helped off the court. Although uninjured, he sat on the bench for approximately ten minutes, during which time the area was again dried with a towel. Fully aware of the ongoing leak and the associated slipping hazard, A.S. voluntarily returned to the game and, shortly thereafter, slipped again suffering the injury that is the subject of this litigation.

These facts fall squarely within the boundaries of the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The risk of slipping on a wet basketball court caused by a known and observable leak is not only reasonably foreseeable but was expressly recognized and accepted by the plaintiff, both in the abstract and by his own conduct on the date of the incident. That the plaintiff chose to reenter the game after having already slipped once on the same condition—ten minutes prior—underscores the voluntary nature of his continued participation.

Moreover, there is no allegation or evidence in the record that Defendants concealed the condition of the gym floor, or that the condition presented an increased or abnormal risk beyond [*4]that which plaintiff had previously encountered. The doctrine does not impose liability where the risks were "known by or perfectly obvious to the player," and the duty of care is discharged where "the conditions [are] as safe as they appear to be" (Brown v. City of New York, 69 AD3d 893 [2d Dept 2010]).

The Court need not find that plaintiff anticipated the precise mechanics of his injury. As clarified by Maddox v. City of New York, 66 NY2d 270 [1985], "[i]t is not necessary to the application of assumption of risk that the injured plaintiff have foreseen the exact manner in which his or her injury occurred, so long as he or she is aware of the potential for injury of the mechanism from which the injury results." Plaintiff A.S.'s testimony plainly satisfies this standard.

Finally, while a property owner owes a duty not to unreasonably increase the risks of play, there is no admissible evidence in the record suggesting that the condition of the gymnasium on the date of the accident was materially worse or more dangerous than what plaintiff had previously encountered and accepted. Accordingly, Defendants have met their prima facie burden on summary judgment, and Plaintiffs have failed to raise a material issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion.

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, Plaintiff's voluntary participation in the game, with full and repeated knowledge of the recurring wet floor condition, absolves Defendants of liability as a matter of law. Plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact that would defeat application of this doctrine.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Motion Sequence Nos. 001) is hereby GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Motion Sequence Nos. 002) is hereby DENIED, as moot.