# Bloom v. Brady

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · March 7, 1991 · 171 A.D.2d 910

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5935239

## Case

- **Full name:** Tracy J. Bloom, an Infant, by Donna L. Lins, His Mother v. Joseph Brady, and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** March 7, 1991
- **Citations:** 171 A.D.2d 910; 566 N.Y.S.2d 783; 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2618
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5935239

## Opinion text

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Travers, J.), entered December 19, 1989 in Rensselaer County, which granted a motion by defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.
We find no error in Supreme Court’s award of summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (hereinafter NiMo) based on General Obligations Law § 9-103. On this appeal, plaintiffs contend that because NiMo posted the entranceway to the road upon which plaintiff Tracy J. Bloom was injured with a "No Trespassing” sign, the grant of immunity to property owners provided by the statute did not apply. However, the statute is not limited to only those situations where a landowner grants permission to others to use his land. As this court has noted "[t]o the contrary, the ordinary meaning of the statutory language establishes clearly that it applies with equal force to a landowner who has not given such permission” and that protection under the statute is not to be denied "because [a] defendant caused signs to be posted prohibiting [recreational] use” (Hoffman v Joseph R. Wunderlich, Inc., 147 AD2d 807, 809 , Iv denied 74 NY2d 612 ; see, Hardy v Gullo, 118 AD2d 541, 542 , Iv denied 69 NY2d 601 ). Thus, the fact that NiMo posted its property and never gave its permission for use did not deprive it of the grant of immunity provided by General Obligations Law § 9-103.
Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Crew III, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5935239. Public record. Not legal advice.