Contrary to defendant-appellant's argument, it owed plaintiff a duty of care since, pursuant to its agreement with defendant City of New York, defendant-appellant was solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the subject golf course and plaintiff, as a golfing patron upon that course, was reasonably within the class of individuals entitled, and, indeed, compelled to rely upon defendant-appellant's satisfactory performance of its exclusive maintenance undertaking...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
