Frederickson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frederickson v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 4563, 151 A.D.3d 497, 53 N.Y.S.3d 539

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

DecidedJune 8, 2017

Docket4214 150859/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4563 (Frederickson 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

Frederickson v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 4563, 151 A.D.3d 497, 53 N.Y.S.3d 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered December 23, 2015, which denied defendants Verizon New York, Inc. and Empire City Subway Company Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any and all cross claims against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to Verizon, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Verizon dismissing the complaint as against it.

The IAS court properly determined in this trip and fall action that issues of fact exist concerning whether an unevenness in the roadway surface caused by the defendants’ work in the area caused plaintiff’s accident (see e.g. Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66 [2015]; Glickman v City of New York, 297 AD2d 220 [1st Dept 2002]). However, Verizon made an unrebutted prima facie showing that it has no potential li *498 ability in this matter inasmuch as the plate in question was put in place by its subsidiary, Empire, without the direction or supervision of the parent company. While plaintiff argued in opposition that further discovery was required to determine whether grounds for Verizon’s liability might exist, the order should be modified to dismiss the complaint as against Verizon in view of plaintiff’s having filed a note of issue before taking Verizon’s deposition.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered December 23, 2015, which denied defendants Verizon New York, Inc. and Empire City Subway Company Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any and all cross claims against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to Verizon, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Verizon dismissing the complaint as against it.

The IAS court properly determined in this trip and fall action that issues of fact exist concerning whether an unevenness in the roadway surface caused by the defendants’ work in the area caused plaintiff’s accident (see e.g. Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66 [2015]; Glickman v City of New York, 297 AD2d 220 [1st Dept 2002]). However, Verizon made an unrebutted prima facie showing that it has no potential li *498 ability in this matter inasmuch as the plate in question was put in place by its subsidiary, Empire, without the direction or supervision of the parent company. While plaintiff argued in opposition that further discovery was required to determine whether grounds for Verizon’s liability might exist, the order should be modified to dismiss the complaint as against Verizon in view of plaintiff’s having filed a note of issue before taking Verizon’s deposition.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4563, 151 A.D.3d 497, 53 N.Y.S.3d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederickson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack