Hare v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hare v. City of New York

183 A.D.2d 682

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

DecidedMay 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 682 (Hare 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

Hare v. City of New York, 183 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J., and a jury), entered on April 29, 1991, in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he fell in the vicinity of a manhole grating owned by defendant Consolidated Edison Company. In its charge to the jury regarding defendant’s "special use” of the public roadway, the court properly instructed that section 3.1 of the Rules and Regulations Relating to Street Openings of the New York City Department of Transporation’s Bureau of Highway Operations (11 RCNY 2-14) defined defendant’s area of special use to include a 12-inch area surrounding the grating. The court also properly charged that defendant’s failure to comply with appendix D, paragraph G.l, of the same rules, requiring that "all manhole covers and other street hardware shall be maintained flush with the most recent surrounding grade”, could be considered as evidence of defendant’s negligence. Finally, there is no merit to defendant’s argument that plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J., and a jury), entered on April 29, 1991, in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he fell in the vicinity of a manhole grating owned by defendant Consolidated Edison Company. In its charge to the jury regarding defendant’s "special use” of the public roadway, the court properly instructed that section 3.1 of the Rules and Regulations Relating to Street Openings of the New York City Department of Transporation’s Bureau of Highway Operations (11 RCNY 2-14) defined defendant’s area of special use to include a 12-inch area surrounding the grating. The court also properly charged that defendant’s failure to comply with appendix D, paragraph G.l, of the same rules, requiring that "all manhole covers and other street hardware shall be maintained flush with the most recent surrounding grade”, could be considered as evidence of defendant’s negligence. Finally, there is no merit to defendant’s argument that plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hare-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack