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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

8 A.D.3d 139 (Herrera v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related