Fisher v. Society of the New York Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisher v. Society of the New York Hospital

271 A.D.2d 262, 707 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4118

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

DecidedApril 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 262 (Fisher v. Society of the New York Hospital) 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

Fisher v. Society of the New York Hospital, 271 A.D.2d 262, 707 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about January 11, 1999, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the motion court improperly considered plaintiffs expert’s affidavit on the issue of whether the street defect to which plaintiff attributes her fall was trivial (cf., Franco v [263]*263Muro, 224 AD2d 579), its determination that the defect was not so trivial as to be nonactionable as a matter of law was proper. That conclusion was supported by a review of the relevant circumstances, the photographs of the accident site and the size and nature of the defect (see, Figueroa v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 AD2d 210). We note that defendants’ motions were made solely on the ground that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law; whether defendants had a duty to maintain the roadway or created or had notice of the defect are issues improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about January 11, 1999, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the motion court improperly considered plaintiffs expert’s affidavit on the issue of whether the street defect to which plaintiff attributes her fall was trivial (cf., Franco v [263]*263Muro, 224 AD2d 579), its determination that the defect was not so trivial as to be nonactionable as a matter of law was proper. That conclusion was supported by a review of the relevant circumstances, the photographs of the accident site and the size and nature of the defect (see, Figueroa v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 AD2d 210). We note that defendants’ motions were made solely on the ground that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law; whether defendants had a duty to maintain the roadway or created or had notice of the defect are issues improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 262, 707 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-society-of-the-new-york-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack