Lopez v. New York City Housing AuthorityLopez v. New York City Housing Authority
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants New York City Housing Authority and City of New York separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated October 15, 1996, as denied their respective motion and cross-
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the defendants’ respective motion and cross motion for summary judgment are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff tripped and fell on a three-fourths-inch difference in height between two different segments of pavement in the Borinquen Plaza mall in Brooklyn. The court denied the defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment, finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether the slight difference in height between a stretch of red brick “pavers” and the adjoining area of gray cement could “possibly creat[e] a trap or snare”. We now reverse.
Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists “depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case”, and is properly a question of fact for the jury (Schechtman v Lappin,