Riley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riley v. City of New York

50 A.D.3d 344, 854 N.Y.S.2d 400

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

DecidedApril 8, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 344 (Riley 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

Riley v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 344, 854 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered November 16, 2006, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff tripped over the top edge of a cellar door that was slightly elevated above the sidewalk, and his own deposition testimony established that the accident occurred in daylight in an area that he traveled on a daily basis. Defendants’ motion established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the alleged defect was trivial, did not constitute a trap or nuisance, and was not actionable as a matter of law (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Martin v Lafayette Morrison Hous. Corp., 31 AD3d 300 [2006]). Flaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact in opposition. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered November 16, 2006, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff tripped over the top edge of a cellar door that was slightly elevated above the sidewalk, and his own deposition testimony established that the accident occurred in daylight in an area that he traveled on a daily basis. Defendants’ motion established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the alleged defect was trivial, did not constitute a trap or nuisance, and was not actionable as a matter of law (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Martin v Lafayette Morrison Hous. Corp., 31 AD3d 300 [2006]). Flaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact in opposition. Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 344, 854 N.Y.S.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack