From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wallace v. Riverbay Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 12, 1999
264 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

August 12, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).


Under the circumstances of this case, where plaintiff offered no proof regarding the circumstances of her fall to suggest that it was caused by anything other than a minimal unevenness in the sidewalk, and plaintiff concedes on appeal that the record reflects a height differential of one half to one inch, summary judgment should have been granted to defendant ( see, Zaritsky v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 211; Figueroa v. Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 247 A.D.2d 210).

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Wallace v. Riverbay Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 12, 1999
264 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Wallace v. Riverbay Corporation

Case Details

Full title:CARMEN WALLACE, Respondent, v. RIVERBAY CORPORATION, Appellant

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

Date published: Aug 12, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 437

Citing Cases

Malach v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.

Where an alleged environmental defect is caused by a height differential the proper inquiry is whether the…