Kempler v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kempler v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 584, 709 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6055

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 584 (Kempler 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

Kempler v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 584, 709 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 7, 1999, which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering a copy of the most recent “Big Apple” map which had been filed with the Depart[585]*585ment of Transportation before the plaintiffs accident. That map did not show a defect at the location where the plaintiff allegedly fell (see, Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241; Civello v City of New York, 255 AD2d 353). Furthermore, the intra-departmental work order submitted by an engineer with the New York City Department of Education did not satisfy the notice requirement of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201 (c) (see, Laing v City of New York, 133 AD2d 339, affd 71 NY2d 912; Sparrock v City of New York, 242 AD2d 289). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 7, 1999, which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering a copy of the most recent “Big Apple” map which had been filed with the Depart[585]*585ment of Transportation before the plaintiffs accident. That map did not show a defect at the location where the plaintiff allegedly fell (see, Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241; Civello v City of New York, 255 AD2d 353). Furthermore, the intra-departmental work order submitted by an engineer with the New York City Department of Education did not satisfy the notice requirement of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201 (c) (see, Laing v City of New York, 133 AD2d 339, affd 71 NY2d 912; Sparrock v City of New York, 242 AD2d 289). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 584, 709 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kempler-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack