Cabrera v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cabrera v. New York City Department of Education

92 A.D.3d 457, 937 N.Y.2d 848

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2012·Published

Opinion

Defendant Department of Education (DOE) is not entitled to [458]*458summary judgment because there is sufficient evidence in the record to raise a question of fact as to whether it knew of a recurring dangerous condition in the fence and routinely left it unaddressed (see Uhlich v Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y., 305 AD2d 107 [2003]) or whether it undertook repairs and performed them negligently (see e.g. Grossman v Amalgamated Hous. Corp., 298 AD2d 224, 226-227 [2002]).

The City is not a proper party to this action (see Bailey v City of New York, 55 AD3d 426 [2008]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Defendant Department of Education (DOE) is not entitled to [458]*458summary judgment because there is sufficient evidence in the record to raise a question of fact as to whether it knew of a recurring dangerous condition in the fence and routinely left it unaddressed (see Uhlich v Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y., 305 AD2d 107 [2003]) or whether it undertook repairs and performed them negligently (see e.g. Grossman v Amalgamated Hous. Corp., 298 AD2d 224, 226-227 [2002]).

The City is not a proper party to this action (see Bailey v City of New York, 55 AD3d 426 [2008]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cabrera v. New York City Department of Education, 92 A.D.3d 457, 937 N.Y.2d 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 457 (Cabrera v. New York City Department of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related