D'Amico v. Archdiocese of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 15 May 2012 |
| Parties | Rosemarie D'AMICO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents. [And a Third Party Action]. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Profeta & Eisenstein, New York ( ), for appellant.
Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York (Christopher D. Mehno of counsel), for Archdiocese of New York, St. Joseph School, Church of St. Joseph and Church of Joachim, respondents.
Barry M. Karson, White Plains, for West New York Restoration Inc. and West New York Restoration of Ct., Inc., Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered March 9, 2011, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion of defendants Archdiocese of New York, St. Joseph School, Church of St. Joseph, and Church of Joachim (Church defendants) denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff tripped and fell on the sidewalk abutting property owned and operated by the Church defendants. She commenced this personal injury action against them and defendants West New York Restoration, Inc. and West New York Restoration of CT, Inc. (collectively West New York), which, pursuant to a contract with the Archdiocese, repaired and replaced the sidewalk in 1998.
In opposition to the Church defendants' submission of evidence demonstrating that the sidewalk defect was trivial, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an engineer who measured the defect at 11/16 of an inch, and opined that it constituted a “substantial defect” under 34 RCNY 2–09(f)(5)(iv). Accordingly, we cannot find, as a matter of law, that the defect was trivial ( see Narvaez v. 2914 Third Ave. Bronx, LLC, 88 A.D.3d 500, 930 N.Y.S.2d 561 [2011];Tese–Milner v. 30 E. 85th St. Co., 60 A.D.3d 458, 873 N.Y.S.2d 905 [2009] ), and the issue is a question for a finder of fact ( Trincere v. County of Suffolk, 90 N.Y.2d 976, 977–978, 665 N.Y.S.2d 615, 688 N.E.2d 489 [1997] ).
The Church defendants also failed to demonstrate that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition, which is visible in photographs and which plaintiff testified she had noticed previously ( see Jacobsen v. Krumholz, 41 A.D.3d 128, 836 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2007] ).
Supreme Court properly granted defendant West New York's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fayolle v. E. W. Manhattan Portfolio L.P.
...sidewalk defects meet the statutory definition of “substantial” also undermines defendants' argument. In D'Amico v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 95 A.D.3d 601, 944 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept. 2012], we found there was a question of fact as to whether the defect was trivial because the plaintiff's exper......
-
Haynie v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...was not “inaccessible.” He testified that his superiors would not consider the box “inaccessible” given that the gate to the yard was [944 N.Y.S.2d 106]open. There were concrete rocks, bricks, and other pieces of masonry debris piled up and blocking the open entranceway to the yard. The rec......
-
Sewesky v. City of N.Y.
...hazard, but assisted in upgrading the deteriorated garden and clearing it of tripping hazards (see D'Amico v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 95 A.D.3d 601, 944 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept.2012] ). Further, Librizzi did not see any condition of wires or rebar sticking out of concrete in the garden during t......
-
Bock v. Loumarita Realty Corp.
...unenclosed sidewalk cafés contributed to his injuries fails to raise a triable issue of fact ( cf. D'Amico v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 95 A.D.3d 601, 944 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept.2012] ). Likewise, plaintiff's claim, even if preserved, that the condition of the sidewalk violated Administrative Co......