From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dynov v. 16th Avenue Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2002
292 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-10044

Submitted January 30, 2002.

March 5, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated October 9, 2001, which denied the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff, in which the third-party defendant joined, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Faust Goetz Schenker Blee, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael Cohen of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant, and Bruce A. Lawrence, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Robert Bongiorno of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant (one brief filed).

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., ANITA R. FLORIO, SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped over a slight height elevation between a steel door and its frame which was embedded in the sidewalk. The defendant third-party plaintiff made a motion, in which the third-party defendant joined, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that the alleged defect was trivial and nonactionable. The Supreme Court, among other things, denied the motion, and we reverse.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff's testimony and the photographs she identified as accurately depicting the steel door over which she tripped establish that the alleged defect on the sidewalk did not constitute a trap or nuisance and was too trivial to be actionable as a matter of law (see, Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977; Hargrove v. Baltic Estates, 278 A.D.2d 278; Neumann v. Senior Citizens Ctr., 273 A.D.2d 452; Sanna v. Wal-Mart Stores, 271 A.D.2d 595; Guerrieri v. Summa, 193 A.D.2d 647). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dynov v. 16th Avenue Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2002
292 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Dynov v. 16th Avenue Realty Associates

Case Details

Full title:GALINA DYNOV, respondent, v. 16TH AVENUE REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 5, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 614

Citing Cases

Torres v. City of New York

We reverse. After examining the facts presented with respect to the alleged defect on the stair on which the…

Tallis v. Fleet Bank

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the alleged…