Sulca v. Barry Hers Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sulca v. Barry Hers Realty, Inc.

29 A.D.3d 779, 815 N.Y.S.2d 204

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

DecidedMay 16, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 779 (Sulca v. Barry Hers Realty, Inc.) 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

Sulca v. Barry Hers Realty, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 779, 815 N.Y.S.2d 204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated January 3, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell on a metal strip on the stairway of the apartment building where she resided. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that the portion of the metal strip on the edge of the stair, which caused her to trip, was raised upward one quarter of an inch. The defendants, based upon the plaintiffs testimony and the photographs which indisputably reflected the condition of the stairway at the time of the accident, established their entitlement to judgment as a [780]*780matter of law as the alleged defect, which did not have any of the characteristics of a trap or snare, was too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Pancella v County of Suffolk, 16 AD3d 566 [2005]; Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567 [2004]; Torres v City of New York, 300 AD2d 391 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Pancella v County of Suffolk, supra; Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Covello, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated January 3, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell on a metal strip on the stairway of the apartment building where she resided. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that the portion of the metal strip on the edge of the stair, which caused her to trip, was raised upward one quarter of an inch. The defendants, based upon the plaintiffs testimony and the photographs which indisputably reflected the condition of the stairway at the time of the accident, established their entitlement to judgment as a [780]*780matter of law as the alleged defect, which did not have any of the characteristics of a trap or snare, was too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Pancella v County of Suffolk, 16 AD3d 566 [2005]; Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567 [2004]; Torres v City of New York, 300 AD2d 391 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Pancella v County of Suffolk, supra; Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 779, 815 N.Y.S.2d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sulca-v-barry-hers-realty-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack