Alvarado v. City of New York

2019 NY Slip Op 962
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2019
Docket159778/15 8337 8336
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 962 (Alvarado v. City of New York) 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
Alvarado v. City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Alvarado v City of New York (2019 NY Slip Op 00962)
Alvarado v City of New York
2019 NY Slip Op 00962
Decided on February 7, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 7, 2019
Acosta, P.J., Gische, Kapnick, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.

159778/15 8337 8336

[*1]Matthew Alvarado, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

City of New York, Defendant-Respondent.


The Law Offices of Anthony Iadevaia, New York (Susan Davis of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered October 16, 2017, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 28, 2018, which, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by submitting evidence that plaintiff frequently played basketball on the subject outdoor basketball court, which has an open and obvious crack which runs the length of the court and has a marked tar surface (Wallace v City of New York, 138 AD3d 509 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 911 [2016]). The court correctly rejected plaintiff's contention that grass growing out of the crack concealed its depth, finding instead that the grass served to highlight the defect, which was also one of the risks assumed by plaintiff when he chose to play basketball at this location (see Trupia v Lake George Cent. School Dist., 14 NY3d 392 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Trupia v. Lake George Central School District
927 N.E.2d 547 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
Wallace v. City of New York
138 A.D.3d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarado-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2019.