Rosario v. Sebco I. Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. Sebco I. Associates, L.P.

305 A.D.2d 307, 761 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921

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

DecidedMay 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 307 (Rosario v. Sebco I. Associates, L.P.) 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

Rosario v. Sebco I. Associates, L.P., 305 A.D.2d 307, 761 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about April 30, 2002, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly tripped upon a lock affixed to a sidewalk cellar door. The photographic evidence, however, indicates that the door is equipped with only one set of hasps for attaching a lock and that those hasps are situated inches from the building line, and the placement of a lock at that location would not have been actionable (see Kempe v Concourse Realty Corp., 237 App Div 708 [1933]). Although plaintiff eventually testified that the cellar doors were at the time of her accident equipped with two sets of hasps and that she tripped upon a lock affixed to a set of hasps located some five feet from the building, and thus closer to the likely flow of pedestrian traffic than its alleged counterpart, this testimony, plainly at variance with the photographic evidence and, indeed, plaintiff’s own prior testimony in which she indicated that she tripped on a lock located within inches of the building line, was insufficient to raise a triable issue.

We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about April 30, 2002, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly tripped upon a lock affixed to a sidewalk cellar door. The photographic evidence, however, indicates that the door is equipped with only one set of hasps for attaching a lock and that those hasps are situated inches from the building line, and the placement of a lock at that location would not have been actionable (see Kempe v Concourse Realty Corp., 237 App Div 708 [1933]). Although plaintiff eventually testified that the cellar doors were at the time of her accident equipped with two sets of hasps and that she tripped upon a lock affixed to a set of hasps located some five feet from the building, and thus closer to the likely flow of pedestrian traffic than its alleged counterpart, this testimony, plainly at variance with the photographic evidence and, indeed, plaintiff’s own prior testimony in which she indicated that she tripped on a lock located within inches of the building line, was insufficient to raise a triable issue.

We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 307, 761 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-sebco-i-associates-lp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack