Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum:
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by their eight-year-old son during a pee wee wrestling practice. Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden on the motion, we conclude that the proof submitted by plaintiffs raises a triable issue of fact whether defendant possessed a sufficient degree of control over the pee wee wrestling program and its coaches to be charged with a duty of care to plaintiffs' son ( see, Hores v. Sargent, 230 A.D.2d 712; see also, Alessi v. Boys Scout of Am. Greater Niagara Frontier Council, 247 A.D.2d 824, 825). We further conclude that plaintiffs' submissions raise triable issues of fact whether plaintiffs' son assumed the risk of injury by participating in the pee wee wrestling program ( see, Utkin v. Rademacher, 261 A.D.2d 840, lv dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 796; Taylor v. Massapequa Intl. Little League, 261 A.D.2d 396, 397) and whether the coaches exercised reasonable care in providing instruction and supervision to the wrestlers ( see, Merkley v. Palymyra-Macedon Cent. School Dist., 130 A.D.2d 937, 938-939; Lorenzo v. Monroe Community Coll., 72 A.D.2d 945, 946).