McCullough v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCullough v. Riverbay Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 4231, 150 A.D.3d 624, 52 N.Y.S.3d 854

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

DecidedMay 25, 2017

Docket4141

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4231 (McCullough 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

McCullough v. Riverbay Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 4231, 150 A.D.3d 624, 52 N.Y.S.3d 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered September 30, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defect in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall was trivial, and that there were no surrounding circumstances that magnified the dangers it posed (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 77-78 [2015]). Defendant submitted photographs and measurements, which showed that the height differential *625 between the expansion joint and the sidewalk flags was less than half an inch. The photographs did not depict any jagged edges or any rough, irregular surface, and the expansion joint was not difficult to see or pass over safely on foot, given plaintiffs testimony that the accident occurred on a sunny day and she was the only person traversing the pathway. Plaintiffs testimony that the defect was two-to-four inches high was speculative, since she did not measure the defect (see Vazquez v JRG Realty Corp., 81 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered September 30, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defect in the sidewalk that allegedly caused plaintiff to trip and fall was trivial, and that there were no surrounding circumstances that magnified the dangers it posed (see Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66, 77-78 [2015]). Defendant submitted photographs and measurements, which showed that the height differential *625 between the expansion joint and the sidewalk flags was less than half an inch. The photographs did not depict any jagged edges or any rough, irregular surface, and the expansion joint was not difficult to see or pass over safely on foot, given plaintiffs testimony that the accident occurred on a sunny day and she was the only person traversing the pathway. Plaintiffs testimony that the defect was two-to-four inches high was speculative, since she did not measure the defect (see Vazquez v JRG Realty Corp., 81 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4231, 150 A.D.3d 624, 52 N.Y.S.3d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack