Colon v. City of New York
This text of 29 A.D.3d 724 (Colon 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.
Opinion
[725]*725In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated September 17, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The evidence submitted by the City in support of its motion established that it had no prior written notice of the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff Theodore Colon’s accident, a condition precedent to maintaining an action to recover damages for personal injuries under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201 (c) (2) (see Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241 [1995]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether one of the recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement applied (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc., 20 AD3d 511 [2005]). Moreover, the City had no duty to inspect the repaving work, as repaving is not an imminently dangerous activity (see De Witt Props, v City of New York, 44 NY2d 417 [1978]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 A.D.3d 724, 815 N.Y.S.2d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colon-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.