Thomas v. City of New York

16 A.D.3d 203, 790 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2514
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 203 (Thomas 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
Thomas v. City of New York, 16 A.D.3d 203, 790 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered June 23, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a sidewalk defect, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury’s verdict finding that defendant City’s negligence in maintaining the sidewalk was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A water-filled depression of the size depicted in the photographs, and the existence of a safe alternative route around the depression along the curb, fairly support a finding that plaintiffs attempt at a one-legged vault over the depression was so unsafe and unreasonable as to constitute the sole cause of [204]*204her accident (cf. Schermerhorn v Warfield, 213 AD2d 877 [1995]). Although plaintiff testified that a pile of garbage on one side of the depression and traffic in the street on the other side left her with no choice but to attempt to jump or stride over the depression, the jury apparently was not persuaded, and the evidence of a dangerous flow of traffic near the curb did not so preponderate in plaintiffs favor that a finding of a safe alternative route could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, 86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Related

Rosario v. HP 680 St. Nicholas Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 33439(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Rodriguez v. City of New York
142 A.D.3d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Williams v. Esor Realty Co.
117 A.D.3d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 203, 790 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.