Cohen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. City of New York

101 A.D.3d 426, 955 N.Y.2d 565

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 2012·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the City submitted evidence demonstrating that it does not own the property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff alleges she fell, and that the abutting property was an educational structure owned by the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, and not an owner-occupied residential property with three or fewer units. The City thus established its absence of liability pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 (b) and (c) (see generally Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517, 521 [2008]). In opposition, plaintiff submitted no evidence or argument sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the City submitted evidence demonstrating that it does not own the property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff alleges she fell, and that the abutting property was an educational structure owned by the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, and not an owner-occupied residential property with three or fewer units. The City thus established its absence of liability pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 (b) and (c) (see generally Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517, 521 [2008]). In opposition, plaintiff submitted no evidence or argument sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cohen v. City of New York, 101 A.D.3d 426, 955 N.Y.2d 565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

101 A.D.3d 426 (Cohen v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related