Albright v. Metz, 88 N.Y.2d 656 (1996)

New York’s General Obligations Law § 9-103 grants immunity to landowners from ordinary negligence claims when individuals are injured while engaging in recreational activities on their property, provided the land is suitable for such activities, and this suitability is determined by factors including past recreational use and the land’s general characteristics.

Summary

Albright sued Metz for injuries her son sustained while motorbiking on Metz’s property, a former gravel mine and landfill. Metz claimed immunity under General Obligations Law § 9-103, which protects landowners from liability for ordinary negligence when their land is used for recreational activities. The court held that the property was suitable for motorbiking, considering its past use for that purpose and its general characteristics, despite its status as a regulated landfill. The ruling affirmed landowner immunity, emphasizing the legislative intent to encourage recreational land use. The court emphasized that the relevant inquiry is the general suitability of the property, not temporary conditions. Metz’s contracting company also qualified for immunity as an “occupant” of the land.

Facts

Metz owned a property that was previously used as a gravel mine and later as a landfill under a DEC permit. Active mining ceased in 1989 or 1990. In April 1991, Albright’s son rode his dirt bike onto the property, as he had done before, and fell approximately 35 feet into the landfill bed after his bike went over an earthen berm. Many people had ridden motorbikes on the property for years prior to the incident.

Procedural History

Albright sued Metz and his contracting company. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on General Obligations Law § 9-103. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding the property suitable for motorbiking and thus providing immunity. The Appellate Division affirmed, citing evidence of past recreational use. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether General Obligations Law § 9-103 extends immunity to landowners for injuries sustained on their property during recreational activities, specifically motorbiking, when the property is a regulated landfill but has been used for such activities in the past?

Holding

Yes, because the property was suitable for motorbiking, evidenced by its past recreational use, and the DEC regulations governing the landfill did not preclude recreational use of the berm where the injury occurred. The relevant inquiry is the general suitability of the property, not temporary conditions.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the two-prong test from Bragg v Genesee County Agric. Socy. and Iannotti v Consolidated Rail Corp.: (1) the plaintiff must be engaged in an activity identified in section 9-103, and (2) the plaintiff must be recreating on land suitable for that activity. Motorbiking is a protected activity. To determine suitability, the Court considered whether the property is physically conducive to the activity and appropriate for public recreational use. Past recreational use is a substantial indicator of physical suitability. The court found that the DEC regulations were targeted at preventing unauthorized dumping, not banning recreational use of areas distinct from the landfill itself. The court quoted Bragg stating: “The statute removes any obligation on the landowner ‘to keep the premises safe * * * [and] to give warning of any hazardous condition * * * to persons entering for [recreational] purposes’ (General Obligations Law § 9-103 [1] [a]). If this language is to have any force, suitability must be judged by viewing the property as it generally exists, not portions of it at some given time.” The court reasoned that imposing a duty to inspect and correct temporary conditions would vitiate the statute. The court further stated: “The premise underlying section 9-103 is simple enough: outdoor recreation is good; New Yorkers need suitable places to engage in outdoor recreation; more places will be made available if property owners do not have to worry about liability when recreationists come onto their land.” The court also held that Metz Contracting qualified for immunity as an “occupant” because it managed the property in accordance with DEC regulations as Metz’s agent.