Ocasio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ocasio v. City of New York

28 A.D.3d 311, 813 N.Y.S.2d 408

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

DecidedApril 13, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 311 (Ocasio 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

Ocasio v. City of New York, 28 A.D.3d 311, 813 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered October 28, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, following a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $665,000, denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the judgment vacated and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The facts of this case are analogous to those in our recent decision in Bielecki v City of New York (14 AD3d 301 [2005]). In Bielecki, we affirmed the trial court in granting the City’s motion to set aside the verdict and dismiss the complaint where the plaintiff failed to show that the City had prior written notice (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]) of the hole in a pedestrian walkway that he stepped into, causing his injuries. Similarly here, the record evidence shows that the City did not receive such notice of the pothole that caused plaintiffs injury and that the pothole’s recurrence, approximately two years after repair by the City, was not the result of an affirmative act of negligence by the City (cf. Kiernan v Thompson, 73 NY2d 840 [1988]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered October 28, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, following a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $665,000, denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, the judgment vacated and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The facts of this case are analogous to those in our recent decision in Bielecki v City of New York (14 AD3d 301 [2005]). In Bielecki, we affirmed the trial court in granting the City’s motion to set aside the verdict and dismiss the complaint where the plaintiff failed to show that the City had prior written notice (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]) of the hole in a pedestrian walkway that he stepped into, causing his injuries. Similarly here, the record evidence shows that the City did not receive such notice of the pothole that caused plaintiffs injury and that the pothole’s recurrence, approximately two years after repair by the City, was not the result of an affirmative act of negligence by the City (cf. Kiernan v Thompson, 73 NY2d 840 [1988]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 311, 813 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocasio-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack