Napoli v. Di Marco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Napoli v. Di Marco

2017 NY Slip Op 1633, 148 A.D.3d 423, 48 N.Y.S.3d 401

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2017

Docket3309 300634/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1633 (Napoli v. Di Marco) 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

Napoli v. Di Marco, 2017 NY Slip Op 1633, 148 A.D.3d 423, 48 N.Y.S.3d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 2, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of defendant’s home. Defendant, as a single family homeowner, could only be liable for the alleged half-inch height differential where the two sidewalk flagstones met in front of her house if she created or exacerbated the alleged hazardous condition (see Coogan v City of New York, 73 AD3d 613 [1st Dept 2010]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 [b]). Here, there was no evidence in the record to indicate that defendant created the height differential. Plaintiff, at most, alleged that tar applied by defendant’s husband in the joints between the sidewalk flagstones had somehow obstructed her vision of the alleged height differential. She never claimed to have tripped over the caulking that was only applied in the joint space between the sidewalk flagstones, and her assertion that the caulking had obstructed her view of the height differential in the flagstones was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered February 2, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of defendant’s home. Defendant, as a single family homeowner, could only be liable for the alleged half-inch height differential where the two sidewalk flagstones met in front of her house if she created or exacerbated the alleged hazardous condition (see Coogan v City of New York, 73 AD3d 613 [1st Dept 2010]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 [b]). Here, there was no evidence in the record to indicate that defendant created the height differential. Plaintiff, at most, alleged that tar applied by defendant’s husband in the joints between the sidewalk flagstones had somehow obstructed her vision of the alleged height differential. She never claimed to have tripped over the caulking that was only applied in the joint space between the sidewalk flagstones, and her assertion that the caulking had obstructed her view of the height differential in the flagstones was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1633, 148 A.D.3d 423, 48 N.Y.S.3d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napoli-v-di-marco-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack