Fraser v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fraser v. City of New York

226 A.D.2d 424, 640 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626

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

DecidedApril 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 424 (Fraser 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

Fraser v. City of New York, 226 A.D.2d 424, 640 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), entered January 25,1995, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the end of the plaintiff’s case, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the repair order of the Department of Transportation, dated June 2, 1987, did not provide prior written notice of the condition which led to the plaintiff’s injuries as required by New York City Administrative Code § 7-201 (c) (2). The repair order merely indicated that there were holes in a stretch of roadway which exceeded 400 feet in length. Thus, the repair order failed to bring the particular condition at issue to the attention of the defendant (see, Weinreb v City of New York, 193 AD2d 596). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), entered January 25,1995, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the end of the plaintiff’s case, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the repair order of the Department of Transportation, dated June 2, 1987, did not provide prior written notice of the condition which led to the plaintiff’s injuries as required by New York City Administrative Code § 7-201 (c) (2). The repair order merely indicated that there were holes in a stretch of roadway which exceeded 400 feet in length. Thus, the repair order failed to bring the particular condition at issue to the attention of the defendant (see, Weinreb v City of New York, 193 AD2d 596). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 424, 640 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fraser-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack