Palazzolla v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palazzolla v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 250, 668 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 250 (Palazzolla 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

Palazzolla v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 250, 668 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, [251]*251New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about April 11, 1996, which, in an action against defendant City for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff police officer when he tripped and fell on an allegedly defective sidewalk while attempting to apprehend a suspect, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiffs’ brief, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and leave to amend is granted.

As defendant concedes on constraint of Cosgriffv City of New York (241 AD2d 382), a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, as amended by chapter 703 of the Laws of 1996, can be based on defendant’s alleged violation of its duty under New York City Charter § 2903 (b) (2) to repair sidewalks.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andidas, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, [251]*251New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about April 11, 1996, which, in an action against defendant City for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff police officer when he tripped and fell on an allegedly defective sidewalk while attempting to apprehend a suspect, insofar as appealed from as limited by plaintiffs’ brief, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and leave to amend is granted.

As defendant concedes on constraint of Cosgriffv City of New York (241 AD2d 382), a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, as amended by chapter 703 of the Laws of 1996, can be based on defendant’s alleged violation of its duty under New York City Charter § 2903 (b) (2) to repair sidewalks.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andidas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 250, 668 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palazzolla-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack