From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iadarola v. Meadows Plaza Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 2000
271 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 24, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 23, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendants Meadows Plaza Development Corp. and Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

O'Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants Meadows Plaza Development Corp. and Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Considering all of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, "including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the "time, place and circumstance' of the injury", the Supreme Court correctly determined that the defect complained of by the plaintiffs was trivial as a matter of law ( Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 978, quoting Caldwell v. Village of Is. Park, 304 N.Y. 268, 274; see, Riser v. New York City Hous. Auth., 260 A.D.2d 564; Marinaccio v. LeChambord Rest., 246 A.D.2d 514).


Summaries of

Iadarola v. Meadows Plaza Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 24, 2000
271 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Iadarola v. Meadows Plaza Development

Case Details

Full title:RALPH A. IADAROLA et al., Appellants, v. MEADOWS PLAZA DEVELOPMENT CORP…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

Wasserman v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the alleged defect was trivial and not actionable as a matter of…