Guerriero v. Jand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guerriero v. Jand

57 A.D.3d 365, 870 N.Y.2d 12

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 365 (Guerriero v. Jand) 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

Guerriero v. Jand, 57 A.D.3d 365, 870 N.Y.2d 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[366]*366Plaintiff fell on a marble step that contained a hairline crack and allegedly a small v-shaped chip, and her deposition testimony showed that the accident occurred in a lighted area that she traveled several times a day. The Jand defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment since the alleged defect, which was six inches long and one sixty-fourth of an inch wide, was trivial, did not constitute a trap or nuisance, and was not actionable as a matter of law (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Martin v Lafayette Morrison Hous. Corp., 31 AD3d 300 [2006]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Although TPM’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, in light of the evidence showing the trivial nature of the defect, the court properly granted summary judgment to TPM pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (see Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

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

[366]*366Plaintiff fell on a marble step that contained a hairline crack and allegedly a small v-shaped chip, and her deposition testimony showed that the accident occurred in a lighted area that she traveled several times a day. The Jand defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment since the alleged defect, which was six inches long and one sixty-fourth of an inch wide, was trivial, did not constitute a trap or nuisance, and was not actionable as a matter of law (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Martin v Lafayette Morrison Hous. Corp., 31 AD3d 300 [2006]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Although TPM’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, in light of the evidence showing the trivial nature of the defect, the court properly granted summary judgment to TPM pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) (see Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 365, 870 N.Y.2d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerriero-v-jand-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack