Adsmond v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adsmond v. City of Poughkeepsie

283 A.D.2d 598, 725 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5459

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 598 (Adsmond v. City of Poughkeepsie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adsmond v. City of Poughkeepsie, 283 A.D.2d 598, 725 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 14, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Whether a dangerous condition exists on real property so as to create liability on the part of the landowner depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Green v Central Is. Nursing Home, 268 AD2d 503; Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647). The Supreme Court improperly determined, as a matter of law, that the condition [599]*599upon which the injured plaintiff fell, a crack in the sidewalk, was a trivial, nonactionable defect. The crack was nine inches long, 5V2 inches wide, and two inches deep. Review of the photographs of the crack and consideration of all relevant factors and surrounding circumstances (see generally, Trincere v County of Suffolk, supra) demonstrate that the issues of whether the crack constituted a dangerous condition and whether the injured plaintiff’s own conduct in failing to avoid an open and obvious defect are matters for jury resolution. Santucci, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 14, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Whether a dangerous condition exists on real property so as to create liability on the part of the landowner depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Green v Central Is. Nursing Home, 268 AD2d 503; Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d 647). The Supreme Court improperly determined, as a matter of law, that the condition [599]*599upon which the injured plaintiff fell, a crack in the sidewalk, was a trivial, nonactionable defect. The crack was nine inches long, 5V2 inches wide, and two inches deep. Review of the photographs of the crack and consideration of all relevant factors and surrounding circumstances (see generally, Trincere v County of Suffolk, supra) demonstrate that the issues of whether the crack constituted a dangerous condition and whether the injured plaintiff’s own conduct in failing to avoid an open and obvious defect are matters for jury resolution. Santucci, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 598, 725 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adsmond-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack