Nicholas v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicholas v. Safir

297 A.D.2d 220, 745 N.Y.2d 799, 745 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7861

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

DecidedAugust 8, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 220 (Nicholas v. Safir) 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

Nicholas v. Safir, 297 A.D.2d 220, 745 N.Y.2d 799, 745 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Accepting that petitioner tripped over an indentation in a tile floor in the precinct house where she was on duty, she did not establish, as a matter of law, that her injury was the result of a sudden, unexpected circumstance (see, Matter of Starnella v Bratton, 92 NY2d 836, 839). There is no evidence in the record as to the size or depth of the indentation, or even that it was more than trivial (the PBA consultant conceded that photographs of the accident scene were not taken until after the station house had been renovated and “did not show anything”). Nor is there evidence that the indentation was of recent origin or that petitioner had been unaware of it. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Accepting that petitioner tripped over an indentation in a tile floor in the precinct house where she was on duty, she did not establish, as a matter of law, that her injury was the result of a sudden, unexpected circumstance (see, Matter of Starnella v Bratton, 92 NY2d 836, 839). There is no evidence in the record as to the size or depth of the indentation, or even that it was more than trivial (the PBA consultant conceded that photographs of the accident scene were not taken until after the station house had been renovated and “did not show anything”). Nor is there evidence that the indentation was of recent origin or that petitioner had been unaware of it. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 220, 745 N.Y.2d 799, 745 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-v-safir-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack