Mascaro v. State, 346 N.E.2d 543 (NY 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Mascaro v. State, 346 N.E.2d 543 (NY 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tesak v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. (nyappdiv, 1998-10-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Tesak v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
In such cases, a small difference in elevation between slabs of pavement will be considered too trivial to be actionable unless the defect has the characteristics of a “trap”, “snare”, or nuisance (Zaritsky v City of New York, 248 AD2d 211 ; see, Mascaro v State of New York, 46 AD2d 941 , affd 38 NY2d 870 ; Tracy v St.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trincere v. County of Suffolk (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
The caselaw reflects a prevailing view to the effect that "differences in elevation of about one inch, without more, * * * [are] nonactionable" ( Morales v Riverbay Corp. 226 AD2d 271 , citing Hecht v City of New York , 89 AD2d 524 , mod on other grounds 60 N.Y.2d 57 ; see also , Mascaro v State of New York , 46 AD2d 941 , affd 38 N.Y.2d 870 ; Allen v Carr , 28 AD2d 155 , affd 22 N.Y.2d 924 ; see also , Guerrieri v Summa , 193 AD2d 647 ; Scally v State of New York , 26 AD2d 606 , affd 24 N.Y.2d 747 ; Keirstead v City of New York , 24 AD2d 486 , affd 17 N.Y.2d 535 ; Fleming v Fifth Ave.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary Mascaro Et Al., Appellants,
v.
State of New York, Respondent
Claim 52834.
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 10, 1976.
346 N.E.2d 543
Ira M. Hariton for appellants., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Douglas L. Manley and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for respondent.
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum. There was insufficient proof in this case on which to posit a finding that there was a duty on the part of the State to maintain the curb in issue here. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division. Our disposition makes it unnecessary to decide between the Court of Claims’ and the Appellate Division’s findings of fact on the issues of negligence and notice.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.