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.
Virginia RIVERA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, 1170 Webster Avenue Co., Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2019, which granted the motion of defendant 1170 Webster Avenue Co., LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she tripped on a water cap in the sidewalk in front of premises owned by defendant. Defendant showed that plaintiff did not trip on the sidewalk in front of its building by submitting plaintiff's deposition testimony that the store in front of which she tripped said “99 cents” on it in big red letters and the affidavit of defendant's owner asserting that no such sign was displayed on its building, but rather on a building across the street (see e.g. Foley v. Chateau Rive Equities, LLC, 172 A.D.3d 599, 102 N.Y.S.3d 22 [1st Dept. 2019] ).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her reliance on Google maps photos, purporting to show the location she described walking to in her testimony, is misplaced since they were not authenticated or definitively show that her fall was in front of defendant's building.
In any event, the alleged defect on which plaintiff tripped was trivial and nonactionable as a matter of law based on the characteristics and surrounding circumstances (see Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 N.Y.3d 66, 77–80, 19 N.Y.S.3d 802, 41 N.E.3d 766 [2015] ). The water cap was a quarter to half of an inch below the surface of the sidewalk and the photographic evidence shows no defects in the water cap and surrounding sidewalk. Furthermore, plaintiff never attributed the cause of the accident to any broken or cracked cement or inadequate lighting (see Saab v. CVS Caremark Corp., 144 A.D.3d 540, 541, 42 N.Y.S.3d 95 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 11242
Decided: March 12, 2020
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)