Hagood v. City of New YorkHagood v. City of New York
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Agnes Persad appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J), dated October 17, 2003, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her, and the defendant City of New York cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, payable by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendants, the motion and the cross motion are granted, and the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed.
The issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, and is generally a question of fact for the jury (see Trincere v County of Suffolk,
The defendants met their respective prima facie burdens of proving that the alleged defect upon which the plaintiff tripped
Accordingly, the motion and the cross motion should have been granted. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.