Iadarola v. Meadows Plaza Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iadarola v. Meadows Plaza Development Corp.

271 A.D.2d 650, 707 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4513

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 650 (Iadarola v. Meadows Plaza Development 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

Iadarola v. Meadows Plaza Development Corp., 271 A.D.2d 650, 707 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 23, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendants Meadows Plaza Development Corp. and Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of . the defendants Meadows Plaza Development Corp. and Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Considering all of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, “including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and [651]*651appearance of the defect along with the 'time, place and circumstance’ of the injury”, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the defect complained of by the plaintiffs was trivial as a matter of law (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978, quoting Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274; see, Riser v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 564; Marinaccio v LeChambord Rest., 246 AD2d 514). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 23, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendants Meadows Plaza Development Corp. and Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of . the defendants Meadows Plaza Development Corp. and Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Considering all of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, “including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and [651]*651appearance of the defect along with the 'time, place and circumstance’ of the injury”, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the defect complained of by the plaintiffs was trivial as a matter of law (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978, quoting Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274; see, Riser v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 564; Marinaccio v LeChambord Rest., 246 AD2d 514). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 650, 707 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iadarola-v-meadows-plaza-development-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack