Legal Opinion

Heiden v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 18, 2008Published

1Opinion of the Court

The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the table wheel upon which the plaintiff tripped and fell was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous (see Mastellone v City of New York, 29 AD3d 540 [2006]; Swan v Eastman Kodak Co., 16 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2005]; Hecht v 281 Scarsdale Corp., 3 AD3d 551, 552 [2004]; Cupo v Karfunkel, 1 AD3d 48 [2003]; Sorce v Great Oak Mar., 282 AD2d 598, 599 [2001]). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Cupo v. KarfunkelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  3. Hecht v. 281 Scarsdale Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  4. Mastellone v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  5. Sorce v. Great Oak MarinaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API