From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castro v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2012
101 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Summary

In Castro v City of New York, 101 AD3d 573 (1 Dept. 2012), the Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint where photographs established that the claimed sidewalk defect was "trivial in nature, and did not amount to a hazard."

Summary of this case from Marks v. 79th St. Tenants Corp.

Opinion

2012-12-20

Maria CASTRO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Sim & Records, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. *513Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.


Sim & Records, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. *513Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 23 2012, which, in this sidewalk trip and fall case, granted the City defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The pleadings, 50–h hearing testimony, photographs, and the Big Apple Map, viewed together, show that the City did not have written notice of the sidewalk condition which plaintiff alleges caused her to trip and fall ( see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7–201[c]; D'Onofrio v. City of New York, 11 N.Y.3d 581, 585, 873 N.Y.S.2d 251, 901 N.E.2d 744 [2008];Roldan v. City of New York, 36 A.D.3d 484, 831 N.Y.S.2d 110 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Plaintiff's argument that the City is liable because it is required to maintain the sidewalk pursuant to Administrative Code § 7–210, even if it did not have written notice of the defect, is unavailing ( see Sondervan v. City of New York, 84 A.D.3d 625, 924 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2011] ).

In any event, the photographs plaintiff submitted and the evidence of the circumstances surrounding the accident establish that the defect is trivial in nature, and did not amount to a hazard ( see Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977–978, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489 [1997];Schwartz v. Bleu Evolution Bar & Rest. Corp., 90 A.D.3d 488, 935 N.Y.S.2d 10 [1st Dept. 2011] ).

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Castro v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2012
101 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

In Castro v City of New York, 101 AD3d 573 (1 Dept. 2012), the Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint where photographs established that the claimed sidewalk defect was "trivial in nature, and did not amount to a hazard."

Summary of this case from Marks v. 79th St. Tenants Corp.
Case details for

Castro v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Maria CASTRO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 20, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8802
955 N.Y.S.2d 512

Citing Cases

Marks v. 79th St. Tenants Corp.

An even great height differential, one of ¾", between two concrete slabs was found to be trivial and…

Covington v. City of N.Y.

Defendants each demonstrated entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff…