Ortiz v. City of New York

103 A.D.3d 468, 960 N.Y.S.2d 11
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

103 A.D.3d 468 (Ortiz v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mema v. 25 Broadway Realty
2017 NY Slip Op 1282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)