Wallace v. Riverbay Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wallace v. Riverbay Corp.

264 A.D.2d 329, 693 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8659

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

DecidedAugust 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 329 (Wallace v. Riverbay 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

Wallace v. Riverbay Corp., 264 A.D.2d 329, 693 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx [330]*330County (Barry Salman, J.), entered November 18, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

Under the circumstances of this case, where plaintiff offered no proof regarding the circumstances of her fall to suggest that it was caused by anything other than a minimal unevenness in the sidewalk, and plaintiff concedes on appeal that the record reflects a height differential of one half to one inch, summary judgment should have been granted to defendant (see, Zaritsky v City of New York, 248 AD2d 211; Figueroa v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 AD2d 210). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx [330]*330County (Barry Salman, J.), entered November 18, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

Under the circumstances of this case, where plaintiff offered no proof regarding the circumstances of her fall to suggest that it was caused by anything other than a minimal unevenness in the sidewalk, and plaintiff concedes on appeal that the record reflects a height differential of one half to one inch, summary judgment should have been granted to defendant (see, Zaritsky v City of New York, 248 AD2d 211; Figueroa v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 AD2d 210). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 329, 693 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack