Corcoran v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corcoran v. City of New York

127 A.D.3d 437, 4 N.Y.S.3d 516

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 7, 2015

Docket14730 106688/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 437 (Corcoran 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

Corcoran v. City of New York, 127 A.D.3d 437, 4 N.Y.S.3d 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), *438 entered December 13, 2013, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that plaintiff could not demonstrate that she could satisfy the requirements of Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 (c) (2), a precondition to suit, which must be pleaded and proved by plaintiff (see Sandler v New York City Tr. Auth., 188 AD2d 335, 336 [1st Dept 1992]). The complaint and plaintiffs bill of particulars allege only that defendant caused or created the dangerous condition that resulted in her injuries. However, there is no evidence in the record that the condition was the result of defendant’s affirmative negligence that immediately resulted in the condition (see Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]).

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning prior notice or acknowledgment of the defect by defendant. Her assertion that 14 work orders for the area could not be located is insufficient since it is speculative that these work orders would have shown that defendant’s work immediately resulted in the dangerous condition, especially because the documents that were produced indicated that all repairs to the bluestone slabs in the park were completed prior to her fall.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), *438 entered December 13, 2013, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that plaintiff could not demonstrate that she could satisfy the requirements of Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 (c) (2), a precondition to suit, which must be pleaded and proved by plaintiff (see Sandler v New York City Tr. Auth., 188 AD2d 335, 336 [1st Dept 1992]). The complaint and plaintiffs bill of particulars allege only that defendant caused or created the dangerous condition that resulted in her injuries. However, there is no evidence in the record that the condition was the result of defendant’s affirmative negligence that immediately resulted in the condition (see Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]).

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning prior notice or acknowledgment of the defect by defendant. Her assertion that 14 work orders for the area could not be located is insufficient since it is speculative that these work orders would have shown that defendant’s work immediately resulted in the dangerous condition, especially because the documents that were produced indicated that all repairs to the bluestone slabs in the park were completed prior to her fall.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 437, 4 N.Y.S.3d 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corcoran-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack