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.
Peter MOLINARI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 167 HOUSING CORP., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered June 21, 2012, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff was allegedly caused to fall by a raised sidewalk flag outside defendants' building, since triable issues exist as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the raised flag (see George v. New York City Tr. Auth., 41 A.D.3d 143, 837 N.Y.S.2d 130 [1st Dept 2007]; Obie v. Catsimatidis, 10 A.D.3d 569, 782 N.Y.S.2d 77 [1st Dept 2004] ). Plaintiff testified as to the cause and location of his fall and such testimony was consistent with the photographs showing an uneven sidewalk at the location of the accident. Moreover, plaintiff stated that the condition of the defect at the time of the accident was substantially as shown in the photographs (see Taylor v. New York City Tr. Auth., 48 N.Y.2d 903 [1979] ). Although there is no indication as to who took the subject photographs, or exactly when they were taken, where a defect in a concrete surface has indicia of coming into existence over a period of time, a jury could find that, “whenever taken,” certain photographs are “a fair and accurate representation” of the condition at the time of an accident (Taylor at 905, 424 N.Y.S.2d 888, 400 N.E.2d 1340).
Moreover, since the photographs may be relied upon, the conclusion of plaintiff's expert that the sidewalk flag was a raised condition was “reasonably inferable from the photographs,” and no inspection was required by the expert, particularly where, as here, such an inspection would have been impossible under the circumstances (Fazio v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 85 A.D.3d 443, 443, 924 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept 2011] ). We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
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: February 19, 2013
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)