Morris v. Greenburgh Central School District No. 7

5 A.D.3d 567, 774 N.Y.S.2d 74
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 567 (Morris v. Greenburgh Central School District No. 7) 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
Morris v. Greenburgh Central School District No. 7, 5 A.D.3d 567, 774 N.Y.S.2d 74 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered February 5, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Greenburgh Central School District No. 7 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Stanley E. Morris was injured when he tripped over the edge of a raised concrete slab while delivering cartons of juice boxes to a school operated by the defendant Greenburgh [568]*568Central School District No. 7 (hereinafter the School District). The Supreme Court granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

In support of its motion, the School District relied on the deposition testimony of one of its custodians to the effect that the concrete slab was raised only one inch. The School District also relied on photographs acknowledged by the injured plaintiff as accurately reflecting the condition of the walkway at the time of the accident. The School District thereby established its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating as a matter of law that the alleged defect, which did not have any of the characteristics of a trap or snare, was too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Neumann v Senior Citizens Ctr., 273 AD2d 452 [2000]; Marinaccio v LeChambord Rest., 246 AD2d 514 [1998]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment.

In view of our determination, the plaintiffs’ remaining contention need not be reached (cf. Tulovic v Chase Manhattan Bank, 309 AD2d 923 [2003]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Slattery v. Sachem North High School
114 A.D.3d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Schiller v. St. Francis Hospital
108 A.D.3d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Schenpanski v. Promise Deli, Inc.
88 A.D.3d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Madero v. Pizzagalli Construction Co.
62 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Bernstein v. Parthenon Enterprises, Inc.
60 A.D.3d 883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Shiles v. Carillon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC
54 A.D.3d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Moore v. Newport Associates L.P.
16 Misc. 3d 618 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Hawkins v. Carter Community Housing Development Fund Corp.
40 A.D.3d 812 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Zalkin v. City of New York
36 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Colao v. Community Programs Center of Long Island, Inc.
29 A.D.3d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Sulca v. Barry Hers Realty, Inc.
29 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bekritsky v. TACS-4, Inc.
27 A.D.3d 680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
D'Arco v. Pagano
21 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Trampakoulous v. Independent Coach Bus Co.
18 A.D.3d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Fitzgerald v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
17 A.D.3d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Mendez v. De Milo
17 A.D.3d 328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Dick v. Gap, Inc.
16 A.D.3d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Meehan v. David J. Hodder & Son, Inc.
13 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 567, 774 N.Y.S.2d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-greenburgh-central-school-district-no-7-nyappdiv-2004.