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.
Nihat KOJTARI, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from (1) a decision of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated December 1, 1999, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated December 14, 1999, which, upon the granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim, made at the close of trial on the issue of liability only, dismissed the claim on the merits.
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The injured claimant was walking on a rustic pathway near a beach within Lake Sebago State Park when he was injured after slipping on sand which caused his foot to slide into a hole. The claimants brought this claim against the defendant for negligently owning, operating, maintaining, and repairing the pathway. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim on the merits upon the defendant's motion, made at the close of the evidence. We affirm.
A determination of the Court of Claims will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless its conclusions could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Tomaiko v. State of New York, 211 A.D.2d 782, 622 N.Y.S.2d 99). Here, based on the dimensions and appearance of the alleged defect and the circumstances of the injury, the hole was a trivial defect which did not constitute a trap or nuisance (see, Marinaccio v. LeChambord Restaurant, 246 A.D.2d 514, 667 N.Y.S.2d 395; Liebl v. Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 A.D.2d 1006, 204 N.Y.S.2d 670; Sullivan v. State of New York, 276 A.D.2d 989, 715 N.Y.S.2d 87; see also, Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489).
The claimants' remaining contentions are without merit.
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: April 02, 2001
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)