Zaransky v. Froccaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zaransky v. Froccaro

178 A.D.2d 594, 578 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16724

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 594 (Zaransky v. Froccaro) 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

Zaransky v. Froccaro, 178 A.D.2d 594, 578 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated March 22, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

[595]*595The plaintiff sustained injuries when she fell on the sidewalk, as she attempted to step down into the parking lot, outside a restaurant situated in a four-store, strip shopping center constructed and owned by the defendants. She alleged that the defendants were negligent in permitting a dangerous and defective condition to exist because the height of the sidewalk at the point where she fell was over 12 inches, in violation of the legally-prescribed maximum for risers, and that the asphalt parking area onto which she attempted to step sloped dramatically away from the sidewalk. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants had notice of the defective condition because they were responsible for the construction of the shopping center and had operated the restaurant for a number of years. Upon this record, we conclude that the plaintiff presented evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Siegel v Hofstra Univ., 154 AD2d 449; cf., Kioleidis v Pergament United Sales, 150 AD2d 526). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, 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, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated March 22, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

[595]*595The plaintiff sustained injuries when she fell on the sidewalk, as she attempted to step down into the parking lot, outside a restaurant situated in a four-store, strip shopping center constructed and owned by the defendants. She alleged that the defendants were negligent in permitting a dangerous and defective condition to exist because the height of the sidewalk at the point where she fell was over 12 inches, in violation of the legally-prescribed maximum for risers, and that the asphalt parking area onto which she attempted to step sloped dramatically away from the sidewalk. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants had notice of the defective condition because they were responsible for the construction of the shopping center and had operated the restaurant for a number of years. Upon this record, we conclude that the plaintiff presented evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Siegel v Hofstra Univ., 154 AD2d 449; cf., Kioleidis v Pergament United Sales, 150 AD2d 526). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 594, 578 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaransky-v-froccaro-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack