Cruz v. Keyspan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. Keyspan

120 A.D.3d 1290, 992 N.Y.S.2d 549

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 2014

DocketIndex No. 12449/12

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1290 (Cruz v. Keyspan) 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

Cruz v. Keyspan, 120 A.D.3d 1290, 992 N.Y.S.2d 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*1291 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated February 7, 2014, which granted the motion of the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell over a pothole in the part of a roadway which was near a curb. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Verizon New York, Inc. (hereinafter Verizon). Verizon moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it did not create the alleged defect. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

Verizon established, prima facie, that it did not perform any work in the area where the accident occurred and that it did not create the alleged defect (see Walton v City of New York, 105 AD3d 732 [2013]; Sand v City of New York, 83 AD3d 923, 925 [2011]; Loughlin v City of New York, 74 AD3d 757, 758 [2010]; Jones v City of New York, 45 AD3d 735 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The mere fact that a permit had been issued to Verizon to open up the sidewalk was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Verizon performed work in the roadway where the accident occurred and created the alleged defect (see Garcia v City of New York, 53 AD3d 644 [2008]; Rubina v City of New York, 51 AD3d 761, 762 [2008]; Cendales v City of New York, 25 AD3d 579, 580-581 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Verizon’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Rivera, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

*1291 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated February 7, 2014, which granted the motion of the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell over a pothole in the part of a roadway which was near a curb. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Verizon New York, Inc. (hereinafter Verizon). Verizon moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it did not create the alleged defect. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

Verizon established, prima facie, that it did not perform any work in the area where the accident occurred and that it did not create the alleged defect (see Walton v City of New York, 105 AD3d 732 [2013]; Sand v City of New York, 83 AD3d 923, 925 [2011]; Loughlin v City of New York, 74 AD3d 757, 758 [2010]; Jones v City of New York, 45 AD3d 735 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The mere fact that a permit had been issued to Verizon to open up the sidewalk was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Verizon performed work in the roadway where the accident occurred and created the alleged defect (see Garcia v City of New York, 53 AD3d 644 [2008]; Rubina v City of New York, 51 AD3d 761, 762 [2008]; Cendales v City of New York, 25 AD3d 579, 580-581 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Verizon’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Rivera, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1290, 992 N.Y.S.2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-keyspan-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack