Santulli v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santulli v. City of New York

287 A.D.2d 352, 731 N.Y.S.2d 173, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9659

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 352 (Santulli 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

Santulli v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 352, 731 N.Y.S.2d 173, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of a building owned by defendant-appellant, insofar as appealed from, denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment [353]*353dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The sidewalk in question has circular patterns imbedded with expansion joints that, judging from the photographs in the record and in the absence of testimony on point, appear to be at least one inch in width. Plaintiff asserts that she fell when her two-inch high, and at most one-inch wide heel became caught in a DA-inch depression in the circular pattern that was created by missing joint filler, and which created a crevice that was deeper than the other parts of the crevice delineating the circle. We cannot say, as appellant urges, that the alleged depression was trivial as a matter of law, or that no issue of fact exists as to whether it was open and obvious (see, Gutierrez v Riverbay Corp., 262 AD2d 64; Nin v Bernard, 257 AD2d 417). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of a building owned by defendant-appellant, insofar as appealed from, denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment [353]*353dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The sidewalk in question has circular patterns imbedded with expansion joints that, judging from the photographs in the record and in the absence of testimony on point, appear to be at least one inch in width. Plaintiff asserts that she fell when her two-inch high, and at most one-inch wide heel became caught in a DA-inch depression in the circular pattern that was created by missing joint filler, and which created a crevice that was deeper than the other parts of the crevice delineating the circle. We cannot say, as appellant urges, that the alleged depression was trivial as a matter of law, or that no issue of fact exists as to whether it was open and obvious (see, Gutierrez v Riverbay Corp., 262 AD2d 64; Nin v Bernard, 257 AD2d 417). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 352, 731 N.Y.S.2d 173, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santulli-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack