Alonso v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alonso v. New York City Transit Authority

298 A.D.2d 311, 748 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10230

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 311 (Alonso v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Alonso v. New York City Transit Authority, 298 A.D.2d 311, 748 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed. The alleged hazard in this trip and fall action, temporary plywood flooring raised from the surrounding well-lit subway platform floor and painted bright yellow around the edges, was open and apparent and thus did not constitute a trap or snare for the unwary, and, under all the relevant circumstances, too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Cruz v Deno’s Wonder Wheel Park, 297 AD2d 653). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed. The alleged hazard in this trip and fall action, temporary plywood flooring raised from the surrounding well-lit subway platform floor and painted bright yellow around the edges, was open and apparent and thus did not constitute a trap or snare for the unwary, and, under all the relevant circumstances, too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Cruz v Deno’s Wonder Wheel Park, 297 AD2d 653). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 311, 748 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alonso-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack