In an opinion issued yesterday, CLARKE v. CATAMOUNT SKI AREA, the New York State Supreme Court once again has held that a ski resort was immune from claims brought by an injured skier. The entirety of the opinion is presented below:

Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries he suffered when he and defendant Zack Lang collided while skiing at an area operated by defendant Catamount Development Corporation. This accident was the result of inherent risks in downhill skiing (see General Obligations Law § 18-101). Defendants made prima facie showings of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the doctrine of assumption of risk; plaintiff admitted awareness of the inherent risks of downhill skiing and defendants submitted proof that they did not enhance such risks (see Farone v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 601 [2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 715 [2009]; Whitman v Zeidman, 16 A.D.3d 197 [2005]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff’s speculative deposition testimony as to the reckless nature of Zack’s skiing at the time of the collision is insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. Further, the court properly declined to consider the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert, given that plaintiff failed to timely disclose the expert’s identity (see Harrington v City of New York, 79 A.D.3d 545, 546 [2010]). In any event, the conclusory affidavit is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks to which plaintiff was exposed (see Bedder v Windham Mtn. Partners, LLC, 86 A.D.3d 428 [2011]; Bono v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl, 269 A.D.2d 482 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 754 [2000]).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *