Herrera v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herrera v. City of New York

8 A.D.3d 139, 779 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8524

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

DecidedJune 17, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 139 (Herrera 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

Herrera v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 139, 779 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 18, 2002, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries sustained when she fell, allegedly by reason of a defect in a city-owned sidewalk that had been the site of recent repair work by defendant contractor Anthony D’Amico & Son. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the trial court properly declined to charge Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-152 (a) to the jury. Section 19-152 (a) imposes no affirmative sidewalk maintenance duty on either defendant City or defendant contractor and, accordingly, proof of its violation would not have been probative of plaintiff’s claim of negligence against those defendants (see Gonzalez v Iocovello, 93 NY2d 539, 552 [1999]; St. Jacques v City of New York, 88 NY2d 920 [1996]). Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 18, 2002, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries sustained when she fell, allegedly by reason of a defect in a city-owned sidewalk that had been the site of recent repair work by defendant contractor Anthony D’Amico & Son. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the trial court properly declined to charge Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-152 (a) to the jury. Section 19-152 (a) imposes no affirmative sidewalk maintenance duty on either defendant City or defendant contractor and, accordingly, proof of its violation would not have been probative of plaintiff’s claim of negligence against those defendants (see Gonzalez v Iocovello, 93 NY2d 539, 552 [1999]; St. Jacques v City of New York, 88 NY2d 920 [1996]). Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 139, 779 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack