Castro v City of New York
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 20, 2012 Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 23 2012, which, in this sidewalk trip and fall case, granted the City defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The pleadings, 50-h hearing testimony, photographs, and the Big Apple Map, viewed together, show that the City did not have written notice of the sidewalk condition which plaintiff alleges caused her to trip and fall (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c]; D'Onofrio v City of New York, 11 NY3d 581, 585 ; Roldan v City of New York, 36 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff's argument that the City is liable because it is required to maintain the sidewalk pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-210, even if it did not have written notice of the defect, is unavailing (see Sondervan v City of New York, 84 AD3d 625 [1st Dept 2011]).
In any event, the photographs plaintiff submitted and the evidence of the circumstances surrounding the accident establish that the defect is trivial in nature, and did not amount to a hazard (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 977-978 ; Schwartz v Bleu Evolution Bar & Rest. Corp., 90 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2011]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...