Flynn v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flynn v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 7172, 154 A.D.3d 488, 61 N.Y.S.3d 483

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2017

Docket4639 159326/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7172 (Flynn 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

Flynn v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 7172, 154 A.D.3d 488, 61 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J-), entered September 13, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon defendants’ establishment that the City of New York had no prior written notice of the alleged depressed condition of a metal plate on the roadway (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]), “the burden shift[ed] to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule — that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality” (Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; see also Rosenblum v City of New York, 89 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff’s speculation that the City’s repaving work in the area, three and a half years earlier, immediately caused the alleged depressed and dangerous condition, is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact (see Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]; Rosenblum at 440).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J-), entered September 13, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon defendants’ establishment that the City of New York had no prior written notice of the alleged depressed condition of a metal plate on the roadway (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]), “the burden shift[ed] to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule — that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality” (Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; see also Rosenblum v City of New York, 89 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff’s speculation that the City’s repaving work in the area, three and a half years earlier, immediately caused the alleged depressed and dangerous condition, is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact (see Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]; Rosenblum at 440).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7172, 154 A.D.3d 488, 61 N.Y.S.3d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack