Hammond v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hammond v. City of New York

100 A.D.3d 563, 954 N.Y.S.2d 529

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 563 (Hammond 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

Hammond v. City of New York, 100 A.D.3d 563, 954 N.Y.S.2d 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[564]*564Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered September 1, 2011, which granted defendant City of New York’s motion to reargue its motion to dismiss the complaint, and upon reargument, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed because the City demonstrated that it had no prior written notice of the alleged defect and no exception to the notice requirement applies (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]). There is no evidence that the City created the alleged defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]). Plaintiffs contention is supported by nothing more than mere speculation that the alleged height differential between the dirt in the tree well and the surrounding sidewalk was immediately present at the time construction of the tree well was completed, and plaintiffs notice of claim failed to give notice of the theory that the City was affirmatively negligent in failing to install tree gratings or cobblestones (see Ghin v City of New York, 76 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, AbdusSalaam and Feinman, JJ.

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

[564]*564Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered September 1, 2011, which granted defendant City of New York’s motion to reargue its motion to dismiss the complaint, and upon reargument, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed because the City demonstrated that it had no prior written notice of the alleged defect and no exception to the notice requirement applies (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]). There is no evidence that the City created the alleged defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]). Plaintiffs contention is supported by nothing more than mere speculation that the alleged height differential between the dirt in the tree well and the surrounding sidewalk was immediately present at the time construction of the tree well was completed, and plaintiffs notice of claim failed to give notice of the theory that the City was affirmatively negligent in failing to install tree gratings or cobblestones (see Ghin v City of New York, 76 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, AbdusSalaam and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 563, 954 N.Y.S.2d 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack