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.
Edmund WIESE and Sharon Wiese, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF LANCASTER, Defendant, James P. Wagner and Tina M. Wagner, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Sharon Wiese (plaintiff) when she tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk in front of the residence of James P. Wagner and Tina M. Wagner (defendants). Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. In support of their motion, defendants submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff in which she testified that “two sections of sidewalk were pushed in forming a V and the outer edges were raised up. And I tripped on that and fell.” They also submitted an affidavit of James Wagner in which he stated that, as shown in the recent photographs annexed to his affidavit, “the change in elevation from one sidewalk tile to the next is approximately one to one and a half inches and at the time of the incident the elevation difference was significantly less.” In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of an arborist who asserted that “the combination of vigorous roots from the tree and the ground settling around the service line to the house has caused the sidewalk to become unlevel at [the] address” where plaintiff tripped and fell. We conclude on the record before us that there is an issue of fact whether the uneven sidewalk constituted a dangerous or defective condition (see generally Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977-978, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489; Tesak v. Marine Midland Bank, 254 A.D.2d 717, 717-718, 678 N.Y.S.2d 226). Indeed, it is well settled that “there is no ‘minimal dimension test’ or per se rule that a defect must be of a certain minimum height or depth in order to be actionable” (Trincere, 90 N.Y.2d at 977, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489), and thus defendants are not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint against defendants James P. Wagner and Tina M. Wagner is reinstated.
MEMORANDUM:
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.
Decided: July 07, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)