Morris v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris v. City of New York

69 A.D.3d 817, 893 N.Y.2d 252

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 817 (Morris 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

Morris v. City of New York, 69 A.D.3d 817, 893 N.Y.2d 252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In granting a motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must determine that by no [818]*818rational process could the trier of fact find in favor of the nonmoving party on the evidence presented (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553 [1997]; Alicea v Ligouri, 54 AD3d 784 [2008]; Alameldin v Kings Castle Caterers, Inc., 53 AD3d 514 [2008]). Here, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s- motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401. The plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant had prior written notice of the alleged hazardous condition that purportedly caused the subject accident or that the defendant created the alleged hazardous condition by an affirmative act of negligence (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Farrell v City of New York, 49 AD3d 806 [2008]). Dillon, J.P, Florio, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In granting a motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, the trial court must determine that by no [818]*818rational process could the trier of fact find in favor of the nonmoving party on the evidence presented (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553 [1997]; Alicea v Ligouri, 54 AD3d 784 [2008]; Alameldin v Kings Castle Caterers, Inc., 53 AD3d 514 [2008]). Here, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s- motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401. The plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant had prior written notice of the alleged hazardous condition that purportedly caused the subject accident or that the defendant created the alleged hazardous condition by an affirmative act of negligence (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Farrell v City of New York, 49 AD3d 806 [2008]). Dillon, J.P, Florio, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 817, 893 N.Y.2d 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack