Haxhaj v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haxhaj v. City of New York

68 A.D.3d 612, 892 N.Y.2d 341

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 612 (Haxhaj 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

Haxhaj v. City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 612, 892 N.Y.2d 341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs were unable to show that defendant City, whose duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition is nondelegable (see Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623 [1978]; McAllen v City of New York, 270 AD2d 43 [2000]), had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the pathway (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]), or that either defendant had created the defect through its own affirmative negligence. They further failed to demonstrate that any circumstances exist under which CPC, a contractor, could have owed a duty of care to them (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). The agreement between the defendants did not indicate that CPC assumed any duty of the City to maintain the premises in a safe condition.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Plaintiffs were unable to show that defendant City, whose duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition is nondelegable (see Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623 [1978]; McAllen v City of New York, 270 AD2d 43 [2000]), had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the pathway (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]), or that either defendant had created the defect through its own affirmative negligence. They further failed to demonstrate that any circumstances exist under which CPC, a contractor, could have owed a duty of care to them (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). The agreement between the defendants did not indicate that CPC assumed any duty of the City to maintain the premises in a safe condition.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 612, 892 N.Y.2d 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haxhaj-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack