D'Arco v. Pagano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Arco v. Pagano

21 A.D.3d 1050, 801 N.Y.S.2d 158

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1050 (D'Arco v. Pagano) 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'Arco v. Pagano, 21 A.D.3d 1050, 801 N.Y.S.2d 158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated December 19, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[1051]*1051Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendant satisfied her burden of showing that the marble saddle installed between the dining room and living room of her residence, which was raised IV16 of an inch over the adjacent carpeted floor, was a trivial defect, and did not have the characteristics of a trap or snare (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Nathan v City of New Rochelle, 282 AD2d 585 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567 [2004]; Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, 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, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated December 19, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[1051]*1051Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendant satisfied her burden of showing that the marble saddle installed between the dining room and living room of her residence, which was raised IV16 of an inch over the adjacent carpeted floor, was a trivial defect, and did not have the characteristics of a trap or snare (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Nathan v City of New Rochelle, 282 AD2d 585 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567 [2004]; Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1050, 801 N.Y.S.2d 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darco-v-pagano-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack