Gutierrez v. Riverbay Corp.

262 A.D.2d 64, 691 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6417
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

262 A.D.2d 64 (Gutierrez v. Riverbay Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Santulli v. City of New York
287 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Rivera v. Jack LaLanne Fitness Centers, Inc.
269 A.D.2d 228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)