D'Angelo v. DeLucia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Angelo v. DeLucia

283 A.D.2d 385, 723 N.Y.S.2d 769, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703

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

DecidedMay 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 385 (D'Angelo v. DeLucia) 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

D'Angelo v. DeLucia, 283 A.D.2d 385, 723 N.Y.S.2d 769, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated May [386]*38622, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary-judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the alleged defect, a height differential between the grass and the sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property, was readily observable by the reasonable use of the injured plaintiff’s senses (see, Canetti v AMCI, Ltd., 281 AD2d 381; Connor v Taylor Rental Ctr., 278 AD2d 270; Speirs v Dick’s Clothing & Sporting Goods, 268 AD2d 581; Breem v Long Is. Light. Co., 256 AD2d 294; Wint v Fulton St. Art Gallery, 263 AD2d 541; Binensztok v Marshall Stores, 228 AD2d 534). Accordingly, as the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated May [386]*38622, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary-judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the alleged defect, a height differential between the grass and the sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property, was readily observable by the reasonable use of the injured plaintiff’s senses (see, Canetti v AMCI, Ltd., 281 AD2d 381; Connor v Taylor Rental Ctr., 278 AD2d 270; Speirs v Dick’s Clothing & Sporting Goods, 268 AD2d 581; Breem v Long Is. Light. Co., 256 AD2d 294; Wint v Fulton St. Art Gallery, 263 AD2d 541; Binensztok v Marshall Stores, 228 AD2d 534). Accordingly, as the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 385, 723 N.Y.S.2d 769, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangelo-v-delucia-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack