Parnes v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parnes v. City of New York

298 A.D.2d 274, 748 N.Y.S.2d 485, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10148

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 274 (Parnes 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

Parnes v. City of New York, 298 A.D.2d 274, 748 N.Y.S.2d 485, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2001, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Tri[275]*275Messine Construction Co. and the cross motion of defendant Empire City Subway Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants-appellants did not carry their burden, as summary judgment movants, of showing the absence of an issue of fact as to whether they did not do either the 1996 or 1998 work that left the asphalt lump, evidenced by photographs, upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped in November of the same year. The record discloses that defendant Empire City had a permit, valid in July 1998, to excavate at the subject location and had previously, in 1996, installed 12 telecommunications conduits there. Empire City’s witness merely testified that she had found no records showing work pursuant to the 1998 permit. The witness for defendant Tri-Messine, a repaver, merely disclaimed knowledge of the 1998 permit, as he had of the 1996 work by Tri-Messine at the subject location, that is plainly evidenced in the record. Summary judgment was therefore properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur — Williams, P.J., Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2001, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Tri[275]*275Messine Construction Co. and the cross motion of defendant Empire City Subway Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants-appellants did not carry their burden, as summary judgment movants, of showing the absence of an issue of fact as to whether they did not do either the 1996 or 1998 work that left the asphalt lump, evidenced by photographs, upon which plaintiff allegedly tripped in November of the same year. The record discloses that defendant Empire City had a permit, valid in July 1998, to excavate at the subject location and had previously, in 1996, installed 12 telecommunications conduits there. Empire City’s witness merely testified that she had found no records showing work pursuant to the 1998 permit. The witness for defendant Tri-Messine, a repaver, merely disclaimed knowledge of the 1998 permit, as he had of the 1996 work by Tri-Messine at the subject location, that is plainly evidenced in the record. Summary judgment was therefore properly denied (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Concur — Williams, P.J., Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 274, 748 N.Y.S.2d 485, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parnes-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack