Di Sanza v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Di Sanza v. City of New York

896 N.E.2d 661, 11 N.Y.3d 766

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 896 N.E.2d 661 (Di Sanza v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Di Sanza v. City of New York, 896 N.E.2d 661, 11 N.Y.3d 766 (N.Y. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that, under the particular circumstances of this case, defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York’s evidentiary submissions were sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the one-inch bulge in the sidewalk grating. We further conclude that plaintiffs introduction of the postaccident photographs, which were not probative of the duration of the bulge, and the conclusory affidavit from his expert were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898, 900 [1978] [photographs are not always sufficient to prove constructive notice]; see also Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544-545 [2002]; Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 451-452 [1997] [conclusory expert affidavit, devoid of evidentiary foundation, insufficient to defeat summary judgment]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that, under the particular circumstances of this case, defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York’s evidentiary submissions were sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the one-inch bulge in the sidewalk grating. We further conclude that plaintiffs introduction of the postaccident photographs, which were not probative of the duration of the bulge, and the conclusory affidavit from his expert were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898, 900 [1978] [photographs are not always sufficient to prove constructive notice]; see also Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544-545 [2002]; Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 451-452 [1997] [conclusory expert affidavit, devoid of evidentiary foundation, insufficient to defeat summary judgment]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

896 N.E.2d 661, 11 N.Y.3d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-sanza-v-city-of-new-york-ny-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack