Dallal v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dallal v. City of New York

257 A.D.2d 354, 683 N.Y.S.2d 63

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 354 (Dallal 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

Dallal v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 354, 683 N.Y.S.2d 63 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[355]*355—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about July 15, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the City’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect as required by section 7-201 (c) (2) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the attempt of the Director of the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation to refute the factual premise underlying such decision, the holding of the Court of Appeals in Katz v City of New York (87 NY2d 241, 245) that it is a “reasonable expectation that in the event two Big Apple maps depict the same area and both predate plaintiffs accident, the later dated map most accurately portrays the area on the date of the accident” is controlling and dispositive of plaintiffs cause of action against the City as well as the City’s third-party action (see, Frank v City of New York, 240 AD2d 198; see also, Civello v City of New York, 255 AD2d 353; Halali v City of New York, 253 AD2d 849). We have considered defendants’ arguments on their cross-appeals regarding the de minimis nature of the alleged defect and find them unpersuasive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

[355]*355—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about July 15, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the City’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect as required by section 7-201 (c) (2) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the attempt of the Director of the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation to refute the factual premise underlying such decision, the holding of the Court of Appeals in Katz v City of New York (87 NY2d 241, 245) that it is a “reasonable expectation that in the event two Big Apple maps depict the same area and both predate plaintiffs accident, the later dated map most accurately portrays the area on the date of the accident” is controlling and dispositive of plaintiffs cause of action against the City as well as the City’s third-party action (see, Frank v City of New York, 240 AD2d 198; see also, Civello v City of New York, 255 AD2d 353; Halali v City of New York, 253 AD2d 849). We have considered defendants’ arguments on their cross-appeals regarding the de minimis nature of the alleged defect and find them unpersuasive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 354, 683 N.Y.S.2d 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dallal-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack