Ortiz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. City of New York

103 A.D.3d 468, 960 N.Y.S.2d 11

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 468 (Ortiz v. City of New York) 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

Ortiz v. City of New York, 103 A.D.3d 468, 960 N.Y.S.2d 11 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[469]*469Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered March 15, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the Reinosa defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the alleged defect, at the location where plaintiff testified she tripped on a raised portion of the sidewalk, was trivial. The photographs provided by appellants in support of their motion are unclear in the record.

Based on plaintiffs testimony, it is also not clear whether or not she tripped on a portion of the sidewalk abutting appellants’ property or on the pedestrian ramp, for which the City of New York is responsible (see Gary v 101 Owners Corp., 89 AD3d 627 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

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

[469]*469Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered March 15, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the Reinosa defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the alleged defect, at the location where plaintiff testified she tripped on a raised portion of the sidewalk, was trivial. The photographs provided by appellants in support of their motion are unclear in the record.

Based on plaintiffs testimony, it is also not clear whether or not she tripped on a portion of the sidewalk abutting appellants’ property or on the pedestrian ramp, for which the City of New York is responsible (see Gary v 101 Owners Corp., 89 AD3d 627 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 468, 960 N.Y.S.2d 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack