Mendoza v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendoza v. City of New York

13 A.D.3d 127, 785 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14999

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 127 (Mendoza 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

Mendoza v. City of New York, 13 A.D.3d 127, 785 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J.), entered September 30, 2003, which denied the contractor defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff allegedly fell in a crosswalk renovated a few years earlier by the contractors. In particular, she claims the work was substandard in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent or ameliorate the settling of the roadway, which caused a dangerous condition leading to her fall. Service of the summary judgment motion did not comport with the time requirements of CFLR 3212 (a).

Because the contractors do not offer an explanation or “good cause” basis for their failure to comply, the court’s disposition should not be disturbed (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J.), entered September 30, 2003, which denied the contractor defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiff allegedly fell in a crosswalk renovated a few years earlier by the contractors. In particular, she claims the work was substandard in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent or ameliorate the settling of the roadway, which caused a dangerous condition leading to her fall. Service of the summary judgment motion did not comport with the time requirements of CFLR 3212 (a).

Because the contractors do not offer an explanation or “good cause” basis for their failure to comply, the court’s disposition should not be disturbed (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 127, 785 N.Y.S.2d 689, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack