Bernstein v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bernstein v. City of New York

221 A.D.2d 214, 633 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11603

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 214 (Bernstein 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

Bernstein v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 214, 633 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered September 26, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion was properly denied. Here, defendant had actual knowledge of the defective bridge condition that caused the decedent’s death by reason of the written report of the Department of Transportation’s inspector that had noted the defect seven days earlier. Actual knowledge of a defect is an exception to the prior written notice requirement and where there is such notice, the 15 day grace period under the "pothole law” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]) to repair a defective condition does not apply to insulate the defendant for failing to take some other appropriate measures within a reasonable time to prevent injury from the condition (see, Klimek v Town of Ghent, 114 AD2d 614, 615). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered September 26, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion was properly denied. Here, defendant had actual knowledge of the defective bridge condition that caused the decedent’s death by reason of the written report of the Department of Transportation’s inspector that had noted the defect seven days earlier. Actual knowledge of a defect is an exception to the prior written notice requirement and where there is such notice, the 15 day grace period under the "pothole law” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]) to repair a defective condition does not apply to insulate the defendant for failing to take some other appropriate measures within a reasonable time to prevent injury from the condition (see, Klimek v Town of Ghent, 114 AD2d 614, 615). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 214, 633 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernstein-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack