From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dick v. Gap, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 2005
16 A.D.3d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Summary

finding less then two-inch sidewalk height differential non-actionable when sidewalk had mild foot traffic, the weather was clear, and nothing obstructed the sidewalk

Summary of this case from Scott v. U.S.

Opinion

2003-10946.

March 28, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated October 30, 2003, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants The Gap, Inc., McAlpin Associates, McAlpin Realty Development, and Grenadier Realty Corporation, and the separate motion of the defendant City of New York, which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Before: Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants established, as a matter of law, that the alleged defect in the public sidewalk was trivial and nonactionable and did not possess the characteristics of a trap or nuisance ( see Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976; Hecht v. City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 61; Morris v. Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567, 568; DiNapoli v. Huntington Hosp., 303 AD2d 359, 360; Hymanson v. A.L.L. Assoc., 300 AD2d 358; Riser v. New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 564). The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiff, in her deposition testimony, described the alleged pavement defect as triangle-shaped and possibly two or three inches deep, photographs of the sidewalk, which she confirmed fairly and accurately represented the accident site, demonstrated that the alleged defect was visibly more shallow. Further, the plaintiff's testimony that, at the time of the incident, foot traffic was mild, it was neither raining nor snowing, and nothing obstructed her view, did not raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Dick v. Gap, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 2005
16 A.D.3d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

finding less then two-inch sidewalk height differential non-actionable when sidewalk had mild foot traffic, the weather was clear, and nothing obstructed the sidewalk

Summary of this case from Scott v. U.S.

finding less then two-inch sidewalk height differential non-actionable when sidewalk had mild foot traffic, the weather was clear, and nothing obstructed the sidewalk

Summary of this case from Scott v. U.S.

affirming the lower court's grant of defendant's summary judgment motion on the triviality of the defect because the plaintiff's deposition testimony that the pavement defect was two inches deep was belied by photographs, and at the time of the incident, foot traffic was mild, it was neither raining nor snowing, and nothing obstructed her view

Summary of this case from Habecker v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.
Case details for

Dick v. Gap, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CHERYL DICK, Appellant, v. THE GAP, INC., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 28, 2005

Citations

16 A.D.3d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
792 N.Y.S.2d 194

Citing Cases

Szilagy v. Town of Smithtown

The Court observes that this particular photograph depicts what appears to be a valley created by the dipping…

Spero v. 681 Ninth Ave.

"While a height differential of one half inch or more is not per se non-trivial, and therefore actionable as…