Jimenez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jimenez v. City of New York

179 A.D.2d 396

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 396 (Jimenez 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

Jimenez v. City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

A private party occupying a building adjoining a municipal sidewalk may be held liable for defects in that sidewalk if that party actually caused the defects (see, e.g., Kobet v Consolidated Edison Co., 176 AD2d 785). Here, defendant Apple Bank had the burden of proving initially that it was entitled to summary judgment, and its failure to sustain that burden warranto denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The appealing defendant’s deposition witness was not conclusive as to whether appellant had effected repairs to the sidewalk prior to the date of the accident. However, the testimony of the president of co-defendant Zol Television and Appliance Company, Inc., which occupied the adjoining building, indicated that the appealing defendant had effected repairs to the sidewalk, possibly before the date of the accident. This uncertainty creates a material triable issue of fact precluding the dismissal of the action as against the appellant (see, e.g., Mangual v Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp., 166 AD2d 272). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

A private party occupying a building adjoining a municipal sidewalk may be held liable for defects in that sidewalk if that party actually caused the defects (see, e.g., Kobet v Consolidated Edison Co., 176 AD2d 785). Here, defendant Apple Bank had the burden of proving initially that it was entitled to summary judgment, and its failure to sustain that burden warranto denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The appealing defendant’s deposition witness was not conclusive as to whether appellant had effected repairs to the sidewalk prior to the date of the accident. However, the testimony of the president of co-defendant Zol Television and Appliance Company, Inc., which occupied the adjoining building, indicated that the appealing defendant had effected repairs to the sidewalk, possibly before the date of the accident. This uncertainty creates a material triable issue of fact precluding the dismissal of the action as against the appellant (see, e.g., Mangual v Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp., 166 AD2d 272). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack