Raiola v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raiola v. City of New York

7 A.D.3d 502, 775 N.Y.S.2d 876

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

DecidedMay 3, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 502 (Raiola 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

Raiola v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 502, 775 N.Y.S.2d 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[503]*503In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant EC. Richard & Son appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J), dated March 26, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action is severed against the remaining defendant.

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries when she fell on a curb cut abutting the side entrance of the defendant EC. Richard & Son (hereinafter EC. Richard) store. The Supreme Court denied the motion of EC. Richard for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. We reverse.

For an abutting landowner to be responsible for injuries occurring on a sidewalk which it puts to special use, the plaintiff must prove that a defective condition existed (see Azzara v Revellese, 146 AD2d 592 [1989]). Here, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to EC. Richard’s prima facie showing that the curb cut on which she fell was not defective (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

[503]*503In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant EC. Richard & Son appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J), dated March 26, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action is severed against the remaining defendant.

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries when she fell on a curb cut abutting the side entrance of the defendant EC. Richard & Son (hereinafter EC. Richard) store. The Supreme Court denied the motion of EC. Richard for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. We reverse.

For an abutting landowner to be responsible for injuries occurring on a sidewalk which it puts to special use, the plaintiff must prove that a defective condition existed (see Azzara v Revellese, 146 AD2d 592 [1989]). Here, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to EC. Richard’s prima facie showing that the curb cut on which she fell was not defective (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 502, 775 N.Y.S.2d 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raiola-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack