Hernandez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. City of New York

251 A.D.2d 456, 674 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6920

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 456 (Hernandez 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

Hernandez v. City of New York, 251 A.D.2d 456, 674 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 13, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendants Liro Group, Ltd., and Liro Consulting Engineers, P. C., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to their contract with the defendant City of New York, the defendants Liro Group, Ltd., and Liro Consulting Engineers, P. C. (hereinafter collectively Liro), were the resident engineers on a 60-block-long roadway resurfacing project, and had the responsibility of monitoring the contractors on the project.

The plaintiff was injured after being thrown from a motorcycle when the defendant Luis Cabassa lost control of the motorcycle after driving over a hole in the roadway. On the date of the accident, however, neither the general contractor, nor any of the subcontractors that were being monitored by Liro, had undertaken work on that portion of the roadway. Thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, Liro had no obligation to monitor the site of the accident and, under the circumstances, cannot be held liable for a condition that it concededly did not create (see, Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 13, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendants Liro Group, Ltd., and Liro Consulting Engineers, P. C., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to their contract with the defendant City of New York, the defendants Liro Group, Ltd., and Liro Consulting Engineers, P. C. (hereinafter collectively Liro), were the resident engineers on a 60-block-long roadway resurfacing project, and had the responsibility of monitoring the contractors on the project.

The plaintiff was injured after being thrown from a motorcycle when the defendant Luis Cabassa lost control of the motorcycle after driving over a hole in the roadway. On the date of the accident, however, neither the general contractor, nor any of the subcontractors that were being monitored by Liro, had undertaken work on that portion of the roadway. Thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, Liro had no obligation to monitor the site of the accident and, under the circumstances, cannot be held liable for a condition that it concededly did not create (see, Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 456, 674 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack