Failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 72.3(a)(3), or with the similar provisions of Rule 72.3(a)(2) (concerning objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation), may result in the District Judge’s refusal to consider the objection. SO ORDERED. November 16, 2007. 1 . The remaining cases relied upon by Peek ‘N Peak are equally distinguishable, insofar as they pertain to inherent risks such as terrain variations (see Painter v. Peek'n Peak Recreation, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 1289, 1290, 769 N.Y.S.2d 678 (4th Dept.2003); Hyland v. State, 300 A.D.2d 794, 794, 752 N.Y.S.2d 113 (3d Dept. 2002); Bono v. Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 482, 482, 703 N.Y.S.2d 246 (2d Dept.2000); Sontag v. Holiday Valley, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 832 N.Y.S.2d 705 (4th Dept.2007) (<HOLDING>)); or to collisions with other skiers while
holding that regardless of the risk of discriminatory enforcement a court may not hold that this risk invalidates the statute in a preenforcement facial attack holding that in determining whether an accident arose out of employment the issue is whether the employees employment brought him in contact with the risk that in fact caused his injuries holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the existence of and source of the injury not when the potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong holding that the plaintiff an experienced skier was sufficiently aware of the inherent risks of downhill skiing including the risk of injury caused by moguls or bumps in the terrain regardless of whether they could be seen