Moran v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moran v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 252, 708 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5906

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

DecidedMay 25, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 252 (Moran 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

Moran v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 252, 708 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered July 6, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged defect in the sidewalk where plaintiff fell was caused by cars driving over the sidewalk in the course of entering and exiting the driveway that lay between defendants-appellants’ and the individual codefendants’ properties. Appellants’ expert’s opinion that the concrete driveway apron that sloped down from the sidewalk was raised by tree roots on the sidewalk adjacent to the apron, which in turn caused the concrete to crack and deteriorate over time, does not eliminate the possibility that cracks and holes in the sidewalk were produced, or exacerbated, by the many years of defendants’ cars driving over it (cf., Mincey v Mensch, 253 AD2d 656). However, no issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged defects in the sidewalk were caused by repairs done by appellants, whose denial of having done any repairs was not countered (see, Morrissey v City of New York, 248 AD2d [253]*253294; Cobo v City of New York, 266 AD2d 121), and, to that extent, we limit the issues of fact for trial. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered July 6, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged defect in the sidewalk where plaintiff fell was caused by cars driving over the sidewalk in the course of entering and exiting the driveway that lay between defendants-appellants’ and the individual codefendants’ properties. Appellants’ expert’s opinion that the concrete driveway apron that sloped down from the sidewalk was raised by tree roots on the sidewalk adjacent to the apron, which in turn caused the concrete to crack and deteriorate over time, does not eliminate the possibility that cracks and holes in the sidewalk were produced, or exacerbated, by the many years of defendants’ cars driving over it (cf., Mincey v Mensch, 253 AD2d 656). However, no issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged defects in the sidewalk were caused by repairs done by appellants, whose denial of having done any repairs was not countered (see, Morrissey v City of New York, 248 AD2d [253]*253294; Cobo v City of New York, 266 AD2d 121), and, to that extent, we limit the issues of fact for trial. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 252, 708 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moran-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack