Peters v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peters v. City of New York

61 A.D.3d 431, 876 N.Y.S.2d 59

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

DecidedApril 7, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 431 (Peters 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

Peters v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d 431, 876 N.Y.S.2d 59 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J), entered November 15, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured while climbing an [432]*432eight-foot fence around a public playground when he slipped and got caught on one of the six-inch spikes at the top. Through plaintiffs’ testimony and photographs of the fence, defendants established prima facie that the fence was in a reasonably safe condition and that the spikes were open and obvious (see Koppel v Hebrew Academy of Five Towns, 191 AD2d 415 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 652 [1993]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to these issues or the negligent design or construction of the fence (see id.).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J), entered November 15, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured while climbing an [432]*432eight-foot fence around a public playground when he slipped and got caught on one of the six-inch spikes at the top. Through plaintiffs’ testimony and photographs of the fence, defendants established prima facie that the fence was in a reasonably safe condition and that the spikes were open and obvious (see Koppel v Hebrew Academy of Five Towns, 191 AD2d 415 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 652 [1993]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to these issues or the negligent design or construction of the fence (see id.).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 431, 876 N.Y.S.2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack