Iverson v. Sayaegh

Full title: David Iverson, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ghassan Sayaegh…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: May 2, 2013

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3171 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

22610/99 9956 9955

05-02-2013

David Iverson, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ghassan Sayaegh, Defendant-Appellant, Adnan Al Faiyad, doing business as Van Cortlandt Deli, Defendant-Respondent. David Iverson, Plaintiff-Respondent, Ghassan Sayaegh, Defendant, Adnan Al Faiyad, doing business as Van Cortlandt Deli, Defendant-Appellant.

Law Office of Domenick L. D'Angelica, New York (Lauren Felicione of counsel), for Ghassan Sayaegh, appellant. Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for Adnan Al Faiyad, respondent/appellant. Lynn Law Firm, LLP, Syracuse (Patricia A. Lynn-Ford of counsel), for David Iverson, respondent.

Tom

, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Feinman, JJ.

Law Office of Domenick L. D'Angelica, New York (Lauren Felicione of counsel), for Ghassan Sayaegh, appellant.

Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for Adnan Al Faiyad, respondent/appellant.

Lynn Law Firm, LLP, Syracuse (Patricia A. Lynn-Ford of counsel), for David Iverson, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia Rodriguez, J.), entered March 7, 2012, which denied defendant Sayaegh's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claim against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim against defendant Sayaegh. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia Rodriguez, J.), entered March 7, 2012, which denied defendant Faiyad's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claim against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim against defendant Faiyad.

The record demonstrates that the allegedly defective condition was trivial and therefore not actionable as a matter of law (see e.g. Koznesoff v First Hous. Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 1027 [2d Dept 2010]; Morales v Riverbay Corp., 226 AD2d 271 [1st Dept 1996]). Photographs show that the hole did not create a tripping hazard.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.