Atkinson v. Key Real Estate Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atkinson v. Key Real Estate Associates, LLC

142 A.D.3d 871, 37 N.Y.S.3d 797

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2016

Docket1716 104274/11

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 871 (Atkinson v. Key Real Estate Associates, LLC) 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

Atkinson v. Key Real Estate Associates, LLC, 142 A.D.3d 871, 37 N.Y.S.3d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, *872 J.), entered April 20, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss so much of the complaint as is based on the height differential between a marble step and the bull-nosing on the front of that step, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The parties agree that the height differential between the marble step and the bull-nosing on which plaintiff caught her heel, causing her to fall, was one eighth to one quarter of an inch. This defect, as a matter of law, did not constitute a trap or nuisance, nor were the intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances such that they magnified the danger posed by this otherwise insignificant defect (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 77-78 [2015]; Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978 [1997]). Thus, this defect was trivial as a matter of law, and therefore nonactionable.

As defendants concede in their reply brief, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ failure to install handrails, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (f) (1), was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2016 NY Slip Op 30744(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, *872 J.), entered April 20, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss so much of the complaint as is based on the height differential between a marble step and the bull-nosing on the front of that step, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The parties agree that the height differential between the marble step and the bull-nosing on which plaintiff caught her heel, causing her to fall, was one eighth to one quarter of an inch. This defect, as a matter of law, did not constitute a trap or nuisance, nor were the intrinsic characteristics or the surrounding circumstances such that they magnified the danger posed by this otherwise insignificant defect (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 77-78 [2015]; Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978 [1997]). Thus, this defect was trivial as a matter of law, and therefore nonactionable.

As defendants concede in their reply brief, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ failure to install handrails, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-375 (f) (1), was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2016 NY Slip Op 30744(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 871, 37 N.Y.S.3d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-key-real-estate-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack