Ricker v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ricker v. Board of Education

61 A.D.3d 735, 876 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedApril 14, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 735 (Ricker v. Board of Education) 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

Ricker v. Board of Education, 61 A.D.3d 735, 876 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated May 12, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “[T]here is no ‘minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977 [1997]). Rather, a court must look at the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the ‘time, place and circumstance’ of the injury” (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d at 978, quoting Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274 [1952]). Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial and therefore, not actionable (see Trumboli v Fifth Ave. Paving, 59 AD3d 706 [2009]; Boxer v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 52 AD3d 447 [2008]; Portanova v Kantlis, 39 AD3d 731, 732 [2007]; [736]*736Mishaan v Tobias, 32 AD3d 1000 [2006]; Maxson v Brentwood Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 506 [2006]; Adsmond v City of Poughkeepsie, 283 AD2d 598 [2001]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated May 12, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “[T]here is no ‘minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977 [1997]). Rather, a court must look at the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the ‘time, place and circumstance’ of the injury” (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d at 978, quoting Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268, 274 [1952]). Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial and therefore, not actionable (see Trumboli v Fifth Ave. Paving, 59 AD3d 706 [2009]; Boxer v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 52 AD3d 447 [2008]; Portanova v Kantlis, 39 AD3d 731, 732 [2007]; [736]*736Mishaan v Tobias, 32 AD3d 1000 [2006]; Maxson v Brentwood Union Free School Dist., 31 AD3d 506 [2006]; Adsmond v City of Poughkeepsie, 283 AD2d 598 [2001]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 735, 876 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricker-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack