Gutierrez v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gutierrez v. Riverbay Corp.

262 A.D.2d 64, 691 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6417

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

DecidedJune 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 64 (Gutierrez v. Riverbay Corp.) 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

Gutierrez v. Riverbay Corp., 262 A.D.2d 64, 691 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered October 1, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The pictures of the two-inch depression in the walkway on defendant’s property on which plaintiff slipped do not demonstrate that it was a “trivial” defect as a matter of law (cf., Evans v Pyramid Co., 184 AD2d 960; Mahota v Cade & Saunders, 228 AD2d 924). Whether a dangerous condition exists on another’s property so as to create liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case, and is generally a question for the jury (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). An issue of constructive notice is raised by plaintiffs affidavit to the effect that the condition had existed for at least several months. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered October 1, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The pictures of the two-inch depression in the walkway on defendant’s property on which plaintiff slipped do not demonstrate that it was a “trivial” defect as a matter of law (cf., Evans v Pyramid Co., 184 AD2d 960; Mahota v Cade & Saunders, 228 AD2d 924). Whether a dangerous condition exists on another’s property so as to create liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case, and is generally a question for the jury (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). An issue of constructive notice is raised by plaintiffs affidavit to the effect that the condition had existed for at least several months. Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 64, 691 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutierrez-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack