Tisei v. Angelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tisei v. Angelo

238 A.D.2d 332, 656 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420

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

DecidedApril 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 332 (Tisei v. Angelo) 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

Tisei v. Angelo, 238 A.D.2d 332, 656 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered April 2, 1996, as granted the cross motion by the defendant City of Beacon for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defect in the sidewalk where the accident occurred was too trivial to be actionable against the defendant City of Beacon (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 232 AD2d 400; Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d [333]*333647). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Goldstein, J,, concurs on constraint of Trincere v County of Suffolk (232 AD2d 400).

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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered April 2, 1996, as granted the cross motion by the defendant City of Beacon for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defect in the sidewalk where the accident occurred was too trivial to be actionable against the defendant City of Beacon (see, Trincere v County of Suffolk, 232 AD2d 400; Guerrieri v Summa, 193 AD2d [333]*333647). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Goldstein, J,, concurs on constraint of Trincere v County of Suffolk (232 AD2d 400).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 332, 656 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tisei-v-angelo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack