Opinion
2017–02002 Index No. 11892/14
05-23-2018
Margaret BEIRNE, appellant, v. AMES' STRAND VIEW WEST CORP., etc., et al., respondents.
Cobert, Haber & Haber, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (David C. Haber of counsel), for appellant. Gallo Vitucci Klar, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Chad Sjoquist of counsel), for respondent Ames' Strand View West Corp. Robert M. Agostisi, Corporation Counsel, Long Beach, N.Y. (Charles M. Geiger of counsel), for respondent City of Long Beach.
Cobert, Haber & Haber, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (David C. Haber of counsel), for appellant.
Gallo Vitucci Klar, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Chad Sjoquist of counsel), for respondent Ames' Strand View West Corp.
Robert M. Agostisi, Corporation Counsel, Long Beach, N.Y. (Charles M. Geiger of counsel), for respondent City of Long Beach.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Antonio I. Brandveen, J.), entered December 28, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendant Ames' Strand View West Corp. and the defendant City of Long Beach which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
On July 12, 2014, between 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., the plaintiff was walking on a sidewalk abutting premises located at 55 California Street, at or near the corner of Beech Street, in the City of Long Beach, when she allegedly tripped over a raised and cracked portion of a sidewalk slab. At the time of the accident, the defendant Ames' Strand View West Corp. (hereinafter Ames) owned the building abutting the area of the sidewalk where the accident occurred. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for personal injures against Ames and the City of Long Beach, alleging negligence. After joinder of issue, Ames and the City separately moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, arguing, among other things, that the alleged condition was trivial and therefore not actionable. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the defendants' respective motions and the plaintiff appeals.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Chojnacki v Old Westbury Gardens, Inc., 152 A.D.3d 645, 646, 58 N.Y.S.3d 583 ), the defendants established, prima facie, that the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall was trivial and therefore not actionable (see Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d 66, 83, 41 N.E.3d 766 ; Fasone v. Northside Props. Mgt. Corp., 149 A.D.3d 905, 52 N.Y.S.3d 428 ; Baldasano v. Long Is. Univ., 143 A.D.3d 933, 40 N.Y.S.3d 175 ; Kam Lin Chee v. DiPaolo, 138 A.D.3d 780, 31 N.Y.S.3d 509 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The parties' remaining contentions regarding the creation of the alleged condition have been rendered academic in light of our determination.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.