Glaser v. City of New York

79 A.D.3d 600, 912 N.Y.S.2d 221
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 600 (Glaser 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
Glaser v. City of New York, 79 A.D.3d 600, 912 N.Y.S.2d 221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered June 11, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of a trip and fall on an alleged roadway defect, denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants-respondents’ answer for failure to produce records related to street repairs and/or defects, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that the City defendants (the City) did not engage in willful and contumacious conduct in failing to produce records reflecting a street repair made at the location of injured plaintiff’s fall (see generally CPLR 3126; Catarine v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 290 AD2d 213, 215 [2002]). The record reflects that the City adequately responded to discovery demands, albeit in response to several orders calling for production, as well as motions to strike. Affidavits submitted by representatives of the City attesting to standard record searches they personally conducted in their departments for roadbed defects, complaints and repairs dating back three years from the accident date supported the City’s position that no record of road repairs to the area where plaintiff fell could be located (see White v New York City Tr. Auth., 308 AD2d 341 [2003]; cf. Rivera-Irby v City of New York, 71 AD3d 482, 483 [2010]). The City also presented a Big Apple Map demonstrating a lack of prior written notice to the City of any defect at the accident location.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Big Mozz, Inc. v. Bric Arts Media Bklyn, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 32961(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Marte v. City of New York
102 A.D.3d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 A.D.3d 600, 912 N.Y.S.2d 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glaser-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.