Graul v. Van Damme

1 Citing case

  1. Saravo-Schectman v. Pinchback

    219 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the height differential associated with the retaining wall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous given the circumstances at the time of the accident, including the dim lighting conditions (seeRosenman v. Siwiec, 196 A.D.3d 523, 525, 147 N.Y.S.3d 426 ; Graul v. Van Damme, 192 A.D.3d 1549, 140 N.Y.S.3d 844 ; Lazic v. Trump Vil. Section 3, Inc., 134 A.D.3d 776, 777, 20 N.Y.S.3d 643 ). Although the defendants submitted photographs showing that the retaining wall stood out as a different color from the surrounding blacktop, those photographs did not depict the actual conditions at the time that the accident occurred, with no exterior lighting.