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.
Kali TRAMPAKOULOUS, etc., respondent, v. INDEPENDENT COACH BUS COMPANY, appellant, et al., defendant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Independent Coach Bus Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated March 19, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Independent Coach Bus Company, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
The plaintiff allegedly fell upon disembarking from a bus provided by the defendant Independent Coach Bus Company (hereinafter the appellant). She alleged that a height differential between the rim of a manhole cover and the surrounding asphalt caused her to fall.
In response to the appellant's demonstration of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, based on the plaintiff's description of the alleged height differential between the manhole cover and the surrounding asphalt, the surrounding circumstances, and scrutiny of the photographs depicting the alleged defect, we find as a matter of law that the alleged defect was too trivial to be actionable (see Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489; Morris v. Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 A.D.3d 567, 568, 774 N.Y.S.2d 74; Riser v. New York City Housing Auth., 260 A.D.2d 564, 688 N.Y.S.2d 645). Moreover, the appellant met its duty of providing a safe place from which the plaintiff could disembark and leave the area (see Blye v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Oper. Auth., 124 A.D.2d 106, 109-111, 511 N.Y.S.2d 612, affd. 72 N.Y.2d 888, 532 N.Y.S.2d 752, 528 N.E.2d 1225; cf. Miller v. Fernan, 73 N.Y.2d 844, 846, 537 N.Y.S.2d 123, 534 N.E.2d 40).
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.
Decided: May 23, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)