Clark v. City of New York

43 A.D.3d 419, 840 N.Y.S.2d 301
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 14, 2007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated May 26, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation failed to meet its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that neither it nor its contractor caused or created the alleged defective condition, mounds of tar around a manhole cover, that purportedly caused the plaintiffs accident (see Selby v City of New York, 34 AD3d 440 [2006]; Cucuzza v City of New York, 2 AD3d 389 [2003]; St. Clair v City of New York, 266 AD2d 277 [1999]). Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Mastro, J.P, Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Clark v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 419, 840 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

43 A.D.3d 419 (Clark v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Downing v. J. Anthony Enters., Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 08038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)