Haulsey v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haulsey v. City of New York

123 A.D.3d 606, 999 N.Y.S.2d 400

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2014

Docket13716 111382/09

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 606 (Haulsey 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

Haulsey v. City of New York, 123 A.D.3d 606, 999 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered August 19, 2013, which denied the motion of defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The City established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while walking within a crosswalk, her foot became stuck in a pothole causing her to fall. The City showed that it was not provided *607 with prior written notice of the subject pothole (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]), and the remaining defendant’s contention that plaintiffs 311 calls, permits issued to Consolidated Edison, and repair orders (FITS reports) regarding potholes in the vicinity of the accident 19 months earlier satisfied the “written acknowledgment” alternative under Administrative Code § 7-201 (c) (2), is unavailing (see e.g. Bruni v City of New York, 2 NY3d 319 [2004]).

Plaintiffs 311 calls were insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement, even if her complaints were reduced to writing (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d 275, 280 [2009]), and permits issued to other parties do not show notice of the defective condition (see Kapilevich v City of New York, 103 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2013]). The FITS reports were also insufficient because it was unclear whether any of the potholes that were repaired 19 months prior to the accident was the pothole that caused plaintiffs fall. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the City’s repairs “immediately result[ed] in the existence of a dangerous condition” (Bielecki v City of New York, 14 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Rosenblum v City of New York, 89 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered August 19, 2013, which denied the motion of defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The City established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while walking within a crosswalk, her foot became stuck in a pothole causing her to fall. The City showed that it was not provided *607 with prior written notice of the subject pothole (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]), and the remaining defendant’s contention that plaintiffs 311 calls, permits issued to Consolidated Edison, and repair orders (FITS reports) regarding potholes in the vicinity of the accident 19 months earlier satisfied the “written acknowledgment” alternative under Administrative Code § 7-201 (c) (2), is unavailing (see e.g. Bruni v City of New York, 2 NY3d 319 [2004]).

Plaintiffs 311 calls were insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement, even if her complaints were reduced to writing (see Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d 275, 280 [2009]), and permits issued to other parties do not show notice of the defective condition (see Kapilevich v City of New York, 103 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2013]). The FITS reports were also insufficient because it was unclear whether any of the potholes that were repaired 19 months prior to the accident was the pothole that caused plaintiffs fall. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the City’s repairs “immediately result[ed] in the existence of a dangerous condition” (Bielecki v City of New York, 14 AD3d 301, 301 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Rosenblum v City of New York, 89 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 606, 999 N.Y.S.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haulsey-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack