Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Angel VOLQUEZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BRONX 2120 CROTONA AVENUE, L.P., Defendant–Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kim Adair Wilson, J.), entered on or about July 5, 2024, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that defendant violated its duty under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7–210 to maintain the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition by failing to repair the raised sidewalk flag on which plaintiff tripped (see Tropper v. Henry St. Settlement, 190 A.D.3d 623, 624, 141 N.Y.S.3d 33 [1st Dept. 2021]). Plaintiff established that defendant had actual knowledge of the defective condition by submitting the deposition testimony of defendant's superintendent at the time of the accident, who testified that he first saw the height differential between the sidewalk flags about two years before plaintiff fell.
Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff established the location of the raised sidewalk flag by drawing a circle on the photograph marked at his deposition and testifying that the circle encompassed the exact location where he fell (see Lopez v. 1675 Realty, 209 A.D.3d 407, 408, 176 N.Y.S.3d 225 [1st Dept. 2022]). Plaintiff also established that the height of the raised sidewalk constituted a trip hazard by submitting his investigator's affidavit that he went to the accident location about 12 days after plaintiff fell and took photographs that fairly and accurately show the sidewalk's condition. Those photographs show that there was a vertical grade differential between the adjacent sidewalk flags of at least one inch, which constitutes a tripping hazard under Administrative Code § 19–152(a)(4) and the Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2–09(f)(5)(iv). In opposition, defendant submitted no evidence that raised a triable issue of fact as to where plaintiff fell or regarding the height differential between the sidewalk flags.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 3754
Decided: February 25, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)