Trinidad v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trinidad v. New York City Transit Authority

60 A.D.3d 437, 873 N.Y.S.2d 488

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 437 (Trinidad v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Trinidad v. New York City Transit Authority, 60 A.D.3d 437, 873 N.Y.S.2d 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered December 26, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiff consistently testified that his foot got stuck in a crack in the stairs.

Due to the poor quality of the photographs it submitted, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the crack in the stairs was so trivial as to be nonactionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Figueroa v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 AD2d 210 [1998]; see also Revis v City of New York, 18 AD3d 290 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered December 26, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiff consistently testified that his foot got stuck in a crack in the stairs.

Due to the poor quality of the photographs it submitted, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the crack in the stairs was so trivial as to be nonactionable (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Figueroa v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 AD2d 210 [1998]; see also Revis v City of New York, 18 AD3d 290 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 437, 873 N.Y.S.2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trinidad-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack