Schwartz v. Bleu Evolution Bar & Restaurant Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Bleu Evolution Bar & Restaurant Corp.

90 A.D.3d 488, 935 N.Y.2d 10

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 488 (Schwartz v. Bleu Evolution Bar & Restaurant Corp.) 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

Schwartz v. Bleu Evolution Bar & Restaurant Corp., 90 A.D.3d 488, 935 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff tripped and fell when her foot got caught in a gap between two sidewalk flags. The gap was approximately one-half-inch wide and the height differential between the flags was also approximately one-half inch. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on plaintiffs theory of how the accident occurred. The gap between the flags and the height differential was trivial and plaintiff has not come forward with evidence to show that the defect presented a significant hazard despite being de minimis (see Gaud v Markham, 307 AD2d 845, 846 [2003], citing Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977-978 [1997]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30938(11).]

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

Plaintiff tripped and fell when her foot got caught in a gap between two sidewalk flags. The gap was approximately one-half-inch wide and the height differential between the flags was also approximately one-half inch. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on plaintiffs theory of how the accident occurred. The gap between the flags and the height differential was trivial and plaintiff has not come forward with evidence to show that the defect presented a significant hazard despite being de minimis (see Gaud v Markham, 307 AD2d 845, 846 [2003], citing Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977-978 [1997]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30938(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 488, 935 N.Y.2d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-bleu-evolution-bar-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack