Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Camacho v. City of New York

Camacho v. City of New York

218 A.D.2d 725, 630 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8834
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 21, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 725 (Camacho 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
Camacho v. City of New York, 218 A.D.2d 725, 630 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated March 23, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion made during trial at the close of the entire case for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated April 29, 1994, entered upon the order.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because it merely memorializes a trial ruling and is not appealable as of right (cf., Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 541-542). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [3]).

[726]*726The injured plaintiff described the defect which allegedly caused her injuries as a "hole * * * about three feet wide by about three feet long by about one foot deep”. To establish the defendant’s awareness of the existence of this condition, the plaintiffs produced a map prepared by the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation, which had been marked with a straight line in an area which corresponded to the location of the accident. This notation indicated the presence of a "raised portion of sidewalk sufficient to cause hazard”. We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant’s knowledge of the map which indicated the existence of a raised sidewalk at the location in question was insufficient to constitute notice of the particular defect which actually caused the accident (see generally, Weinreb v City of New York, 193 AD2d 596).

We have examined the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fisch v. City of New York
2021 NY Slip Op 03021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Rodriguez v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 5864 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Foley v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 4389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Baidal v. City of New York
50 Misc. 3d 948 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Daniels v. City of New York
91 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
D'Onofrio v. City of New York
901 N.E.2d 744 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
Bradley v. City of New York
38 A.D.3d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Khemraj v. City of New York
37 A.D.3d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Vertsberger v. City of New York
34 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Laughton v. City of New York
30 A.D.3d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Cuccia v. City of New York
22 A.D.3d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Almadotter v. City of New York
15 A.D.3d 426 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Waner v. City of New York
5 A.D.3d 288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Patane v. City of New York
284 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Zygnerski v. City of New York
283 A.D.2d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Kemp v. Lynch
283 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Johnson v. City of New York
280 A.D.2d 271 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Halali v. City of New York
253 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Ciervo v. City of New York
240 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 A.D.2d 725, 630 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.