Mendoza v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendoza v. City of New York

170 A.D.2d 198

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1991·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about January 12, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendant Tri-Messine Construction Co., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This is a personal injury action where the plaintiff is alleged to have fallen on defective pavement. The IAS court correctly found, based on photographs and the affidavit of an expert, that there is a triable issue of fact as to the negligence of the contractor who performed the excavation and resurfacing (see, Sternbach v Cornell Univ., 162 AD2d 922, 923). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about January 12, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendant Tri-Messine Construction Co., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This is a personal injury action where the plaintiff is alleged to have fallen on defective pavement. The IAS court correctly found, based on photographs and the affidavit of an expert, that there is a triable issue of fact as to the negligence of the contractor who performed the excavation and resurfacing (see, Sternbach v Cornell Univ., 162 AD2d 922, 923). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Mendoza v. City of New York, 170 A.D.2d 198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

170 A.D.2d 198 (Mendoza v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related