Buccino v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buccino v. City of New York

84 A.D.3d 670, 923 N.Y.S.2d 322

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

DecidedMay 26, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 670 (Buccino 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

Buccino v. City of New York, 84 A.D.3d 670, 923 N.Y.S.2d 322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 13, 2010, which granted the City defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff regularly bicycled to his job at the New York piers, employing one route. The court correctly found, as a matter of law, that a speed bump on the 20-foot-wide roadway at the entrance to Pier 94, coupled with a car parked near the speed bump, which car plaintiff had seen in the same location many times before, did not constitute a dangerous condition. The speed bump and the legally parked car — which left at leást 10 feet for vehicles to pass through — were “plainly observable and did not pose any danger to someone making reasonable use of his or her senses” (Rivera v City of New York, 57 AD3d 281, 282 [2008]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 13, 2010, which granted the City defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff regularly bicycled to his job at the New York piers, employing one route. The court correctly found, as a matter of law, that a speed bump on the 20-foot-wide roadway at the entrance to Pier 94, coupled with a car parked near the speed bump, which car plaintiff had seen in the same location many times before, did not constitute a dangerous condition. The speed bump and the legally parked car — which left at leást 10 feet for vehicles to pass through — were “plainly observable and did not pose any danger to someone making reasonable use of his or her senses” (Rivera v City of New York, 57 AD3d 281, 282 [2008]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.3d 670, 923 N.Y.S.2d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buccino-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack