From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cruz v. Verizon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2007
39 A.D.3d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 866.

April 24, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York (Kenneth J. Gorman of counsel), for appellant.

Conway, Farrell, Curtin Kelly, P.C., New York (Jonathan T. Uejio of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.


The affirmation of defendant's attorney and the arguments made therein are supported by pertinent references to the pleadings, the parties' deposition testimony and photographs marked as exhibits at depositions ( see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563), and establish defendant's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the fact that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial ( see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Gaud v Markham, 307 AD2d 845).


Summaries of

Cruz v. Verizon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2007
39 A.D.3d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Cruz v. Verizon

Case Details

Full title:ANA V. CRUZ, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 2007

Citations

39 A.D.3d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 3574
832 N.Y.S.2d 801

Citing Cases

Tarar v. Island House Tenants Corp.

At the outset, the court notes that plaintiffs do not oppose the dismissal of the claims asserted against the…

MAXON v. ASN FOUNDRY, LLC

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts of…