Legal Opinion
Herrera v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 15, 1999PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered July 24, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellant’s brief, denied defendant Anthony D’Amico & Son’s cross motion for summary judgment, affirmed, without costs.
There is no per se rule that a sidewalk defect must be of a certain minimum elevation or width differential in order to be actionable; rather, it depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case (Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976). Generally, a sidewalk defect presents an issue of fact for a jury (see, Nin v Bernard, 257 AD2d…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Trincere v. County of SuffolkNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Tesak v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Nin v. BernardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Rivera v. 2300 X-tra Wholesalers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
3Cited by11 opinions
- Argenio v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Nathan v. City of New RochelleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Abreu v. New York City Housing Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Kajfasz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Aller v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.