Faiz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faiz v. City of New York

254 A.D.2d 322, 678 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10773

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 322 (Faiz 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

Faiz v. City of New York, 254 A.D.2d 322, 678 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated August 1, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant George Trimis, made at the close of the plaintiff’s case, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[323]*323The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence at trial to make the requisite showing that the defendant George Trimis created or exacerbated a hazardous snow and ice condition on the sidewalk abutting his premises. Indeed, the plaintiff herself testified that the area of snow and ice where she fell had not been shoveled, sanded, or salted, and Trimis similarly stated that a photograph of the area indicated that it had not been shoveled. Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury could not have rationally found in favor of the plaintiff and against Trimis (see generally, McCloud v Marcantonio, 106 AD2d 493), and Trimis was entitled to the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see, Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470; Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated August 1, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant George Trimis, made at the close of the plaintiff’s case, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[323]*323The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence at trial to make the requisite showing that the defendant George Trimis created or exacerbated a hazardous snow and ice condition on the sidewalk abutting his premises. Indeed, the plaintiff herself testified that the area of snow and ice where she fell had not been shoveled, sanded, or salted, and Trimis similarly stated that a photograph of the area indicated that it had not been shoveled. Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury could not have rationally found in favor of the plaintiff and against Trimis (see generally, McCloud v Marcantonio, 106 AD2d 493), and Trimis was entitled to the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see, Roark v Hunting, 24 NY2d 470; Stewart v Yeshiva Nachlas Haleviym, 186 AD2d 731). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 322, 678 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faiz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack