Bermudez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bermudez v. City of New York

21 A.D.3d 258, 799 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8304

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

DecidedAugust 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 258 (Bermudez v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bermudez v. City of New York, 21 A.D.3d 258, 799 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 14, 2005, which denied the motion of defendant-appellant Acme-Skillman Concrete Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as against defendant-appellant. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the motion court’s finding, the street opening permit for catch basin installation work at the intersection where plaintiff stepped into a pothole and broke her ankle, and the City’s contract with Acme for such work, are insufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether such work was actually performed. The undisputed testimony of Acme’s project and of[259]*259fice managers that, although it had obtained the permit, the City had cancelled the contract and, as a result, Acme performed no work at the site, together with the undisputed record of Acme’s job site locations listing the areas where it actually worked pursuant to the contract, which did not include the site of plaintiffs accident, warrants granting summary judgment in Acme’s favor. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 14, 2005, which denied the motion of defendant-appellant Acme-Skillman Concrete Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as against defendant-appellant. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the motion court’s finding, the street opening permit for catch basin installation work at the intersection where plaintiff stepped into a pothole and broke her ankle, and the City’s contract with Acme for such work, are insufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether such work was actually performed. The undisputed testimony of Acme’s project and of[259]*259fice managers that, although it had obtained the permit, the City had cancelled the contract and, as a result, Acme performed no work at the site, together with the undisputed record of Acme’s job site locations listing the areas where it actually worked pursuant to the contract, which did not include the site of plaintiffs accident, warrants granting summary judgment in Acme’s favor. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 258, 799 N.Y.S.2d 497, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bermudez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack