Goldban v. 56th Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldban v. 56th Realty, LLC

304 A.D.2d 408, 758 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4108

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

DecidedApril 15, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 408 (Goldban v. 56th Realty, 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

Goldban v. 56th Realty, LLC, 304 A.D.2d 408, 758 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell on the sidewalk abutting defendants-respondents’ premises, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff tripped and fell when her foot became ensnared in one of the hoops, or “wickets,” of the metal tree guard surrounding a tree in front of defendants’ premises. Plaintiff admits that she saw the tree guard before stepping into it, but that she was momentarily distracted by a taxi cab driving by, causing her to forget about the tree guard. The action was properly dismissed in view of plaintiffs admission that the tree guard was readily observable (see Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 [409]*409AD2d 95 [1995]), and there is no showing of negligence on the part of defendant (see Flynn v City of New York, 103 AD2d 98, 102-103 [1984]; O’Neill v Spitzer, 160 AD2d 298 [1990]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell on the sidewalk abutting defendants-respondents’ premises, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff tripped and fell when her foot became ensnared in one of the hoops, or “wickets,” of the metal tree guard surrounding a tree in front of defendants’ premises. Plaintiff admits that she saw the tree guard before stepping into it, but that she was momentarily distracted by a taxi cab driving by, causing her to forget about the tree guard. The action was properly dismissed in view of plaintiffs admission that the tree guard was readily observable (see Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 [409]*409AD2d 95 [1995]), and there is no showing of negligence on the part of defendant (see Flynn v City of New York, 103 AD2d 98, 102-103 [1984]; O’Neill v Spitzer, 160 AD2d 298 [1990]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 408, 758 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldban-v-56th-realty-llc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack