Boniello v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boniello v. City of New York

106 A.D.3d 612, 965 N.Y.S.2d 350

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

DecidedMay 23, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 612 (Boniello 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

Boniello v. City of New York, 106 A.D.3d 612, 965 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered September 16, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was proper since plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning defendant’s prior notice of the defect which plaintiff alleged caused her to fall (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]). Although documents produced by defendant indicated that multiple 311 calls resulted in an inspection by defendant’s employees and a determination that a dangerous condition existed in the vicinity of plaintiffs accident (see Bruni v City of New York, 2 NY3d 319, 326-327 [2004]), there is a lack of evidence that the defect was the one which caused plaintiffs fall (see Roldan v City of New York, 36 AD3d 484, 484 [1st Dept 2007] [“(t)he awareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident”]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Saxe, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered September 16, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was proper since plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning defendant’s prior notice of the defect which plaintiff alleged caused her to fall (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]). Although documents produced by defendant indicated that multiple 311 calls resulted in an inspection by defendant’s employees and a determination that a dangerous condition existed in the vicinity of plaintiffs accident (see Bruni v City of New York, 2 NY3d 319, 326-327 [2004]), there is a lack of evidence that the defect was the one which caused plaintiffs fall (see Roldan v City of New York, 36 AD3d 484, 484 [1st Dept 2007] [“(t)he awareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident”]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Saxe, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 612, 965 N.Y.S.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boniello-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack