Moore v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. New York City Housing Authority

251 A.D.2d 15, 672 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6388

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 22, 1997, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the danger potentially posed by the stairway defect alleged by plaintiff to be the cause of her injury is of sufficient magnitude to raise a triable issue as to whether a dangerous or defective condition in fact existed (cf., Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). There was, in addition, sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant had constructive notice of that defect, since plaintiff and her daughter both testified that they had observed the defect some six months prior to plaintiff’s accident. We note in this connection that the claimed defect, involving the erosion of concrete from underneath the outer metal stripping of a step, was not transient in nature (see, e.g., Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 22, 1997, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the danger potentially posed by the stairway defect alleged by plaintiff to be the cause of her injury is of sufficient magnitude to raise a triable issue as to whether a dangerous or defective condition in fact existed (cf., Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). There was, in addition, sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant had constructive notice of that defect, since plaintiff and her daughter both testified that they had observed the defect some six months prior to plaintiff’s accident. We note in this connection that the claimed defect, involving the erosion of concrete from underneath the outer metal stripping of a step, was not transient in nature (see, e.g., Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Moore v. New York City Housing Authority, 251 A.D.2d 15, 672 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 15 (Moore v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related