DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On March 30, 1998, the injured plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff), then 16 years old, struck a rock while riding a motorized dirt bike in a grassy area of the "Four Diamonds" ballfield located at Drier-Offerman Park in Brooklyn (hereinafter the Park). The plaintiff previously rode the dirt bike in the same ballfield at the Park. One of the plaintiff's witnesses asserted in an affidavit that he saw the subject rock, which was used to secure a soccer goal, on a "number of occasions" in the ballfield since October 1997. The plaintiff's witness also estimated the plaintiff's speed at the time of the accident to be 35 miles per hour. The plaintiff was not wearing any protective gear.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant, which owned and maintained the Park. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, on the ground that the plaintiff assumed the risk of hitting a rock in the open field. We affirm.
"[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, 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" ( Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484; Calise v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 378). A participant consents to the risk of "those injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation" ( Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439). "It 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" ( Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 278; Schiavone v. Brinewood Rod Gun Club, 283 A.D.2d 234, 236).
In this case, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; Schiavone v. Brinewood Rod Gun Club, supra; Boen v. Ski Plattekill, 282 A.D.2d 563). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of our determination, we do not address the plaintiffs' remaining contentions.
SMITH, J.P., H. MILLER, S. MILLER and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.