Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

D'Arco v. Pagano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 26, 2005

21 A.D.3d 1050; 801 N.Y.S.2d 158

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Copley v. Town of Riverhead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Pace v. Target Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
Abalo v. Santorelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Abalo v. Santorelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Nunez v. Morwood Dry Cleaners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Nunez v. Morwood Dry Cleaners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Milewski v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
James v. Newport Gardens, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Aguayo v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Shohet v. Shaaya (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated December 19, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*1051Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendant satisfied her burden of showing that the marble saddle installed between the dining room and living room of her residence, which was raised IV16 of an inch over the adjacent carpeted floor, was a trivial defect, and did not have the characteristics of a trap or snare (see Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976 [1997]; Nathan v City of New Rochelle, 282 AD2d 585 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7, 5 AD3d 567 [2004]; Hargrove v Baltic Estates, 278 AD2d 278 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.