AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

Nancy Nathan, appellant, v. City of New Rochelle, defendant, New Roc Associates, LP, respondent.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped on a crack in the sidewalk in front of a building owned by the defendant New Roc Associates, LP (hereinafter New Roc). The Supreme Court granted the motion of New Roc for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, determining that the approximately one-inch height difference created by the crack constituted a trivial, nonactionable defect. We affirm.

After New Roc established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury (see, Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977; Riser v. New York City Hous. Auth., 260 A.D.2d 564; Marinaccio v. LeChambord Res., 246 A.D.2d 514, 515). However, not every injury allegedly caused by an elevated brick or sidewalk slab need be submitted to a jury (see, Trincere v. County of Suffolk, supra; Riser v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Marinaccio v. LeChambord Res., supra; Lopez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 245 A.D.2d 273, 274). Here, scrutiny of the photograph identified by the plaintiff as accurately depicting the pavement where she fell, and consideration of all other relevant factors, support the Supreme Court's determination that the defect, which did not have any of the characteristics of a trap or snare, was too trivial to be actionable as a matter of law (see, Sanna v. Wal-Mart Stores, 271 A.D.2d 595; Lopez v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647). The plaintiff's assertion that triable issues of fact were raised by the time, place, and circumstances of the accident are without merit (see, Sanna v. Wal-Mart Stores, supra; Herrera v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 120; Morris v. Nacmias, 245 A.D.2d 432).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

NATHAN v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE
(Apr 16, 2001)