Leventhal v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leventhal v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp.

308 A.D.2d 434, 764 N.Y.S.2d 125

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 434 (Leventhal v. Forest Hills Gardens 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

Leventhal v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp., 308 A.D.2d 434, 764 N.Y.S.2d 125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover [435]*435damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Risi, J.), entered August 5, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

In this action, an important factual question on the issue of the defendant’s liability was whether the defendant had constructive notice of an alleged defect that the plaintiff claims caused her fall (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). To support her claim, the plaintiff sought to introduce in evidence four photographs of the accident site. The trial court admitted in evidence one photograph constituting a general overview of the area but excluded from evidence three more specific photographs showing the accident site in greater detail. This was reversible error.

The plaintiff properly authenticated the three excluded photographs of the accident site as fair and accurate depictions of the area at the time she fell (cf. People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 347 [1974]). These photographs may have allowed the jury to infer, based upon the appearance of the defect, that the condition had to have come into being over such a length of time that knowledge thereof should have been acquired by the defendant in the exercise of reasonable care (see Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 NY2d 903, 904 [1979]). Under the circumstances, the excluded photographs were not cumulative (cf. Segnit v Stuhr Gardens Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 227 AD2d 612 [1996]; Tannen v Long Is. R.R., 215 AD2d 745 [1995]). Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover [435]*435damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Risi, J.), entered August 5, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

In this action, an important factual question on the issue of the defendant’s liability was whether the defendant had constructive notice of an alleged defect that the plaintiff claims caused her fall (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 [1986]). To support her claim, the plaintiff sought to introduce in evidence four photographs of the accident site. The trial court admitted in evidence one photograph constituting a general overview of the area but excluded from evidence three more specific photographs showing the accident site in greater detail. This was reversible error.

The plaintiff properly authenticated the three excluded photographs of the accident site as fair and accurate depictions of the area at the time she fell (cf. People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 347 [1974]). These photographs may have allowed the jury to infer, based upon the appearance of the defect, that the condition had to have come into being over such a length of time that knowledge thereof should have been acquired by the defendant in the exercise of reasonable care (see Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 NY2d 903, 904 [1979]). Under the circumstances, the excluded photographs were not cumulative (cf. Segnit v Stuhr Gardens Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 227 AD2d 612 [1996]; Tannen v Long Is. R.R., 215 AD2d 745 [1995]). Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 434, 764 N.Y.S.2d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leventhal-v-forest-hills-gardens-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack