Parra v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parra v. City of New York

137 A.D.3d 532, 27 N.Y.S.3d 36

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

Docket13995 104732/11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 532 (Parra 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

Parra v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 532, 27 N.Y.S.3d 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 9, 2014, which denied defendants 175 Dykman LLC and Payless ShoeSource, Inc.’s (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to strike defendants’ answer for spoliation of evidence, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against said defendants.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she tripped over a sidewalk defect, defendants demonstrated that they lacked actual and constructive notice *533 of the defective condition. Defendants submitted plaintiff’s testimony that she had never seen the defect before, and had no knowledge of prior accidents or complaints and the testimony of defendant Payless’s assistant store manager that the sidewalk was cleaned every morning, no defects were noted, and there were no complaints or prior accidents (see Gomez v Congregation K’Hal Adath Jeshurun, Inc., 104 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2013]). The Big Apple map, which was filed more than six years prior to the accident, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to constructive notice since there was no evidence that the condition shown on that map was the same defect that caused plaintiff’s fall.

The court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion for sanctions based on the supposed re-paving of the sidewalk where plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff failed to establish that defendants had an obligation to preserve the sidewalk in its alleged dangerous condition and that they destroyed the evidence “with a culpable state of mind” (Duluc v AC & L Food Corp., 119 AD3d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted], l v denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered May 9, 2014, which denied defendants 175 Dykman LLC and Payless ShoeSource, Inc.’s (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to strike defendants’ answer for spoliation of evidence, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against said defendants.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she tripped over a sidewalk defect, defendants demonstrated that they lacked actual and constructive notice *533 of the defective condition. Defendants submitted plaintiff’s testimony that she had never seen the defect before, and had no knowledge of prior accidents or complaints and the testimony of defendant Payless’s assistant store manager that the sidewalk was cleaned every morning, no defects were noted, and there were no complaints or prior accidents (see Gomez v Congregation K’Hal Adath Jeshurun, Inc., 104 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2013]). The Big Apple map, which was filed more than six years prior to the accident, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to constructive notice since there was no evidence that the condition shown on that map was the same defect that caused plaintiff’s fall.

The court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion for sanctions based on the supposed re-paving of the sidewalk where plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff failed to establish that defendants had an obligation to preserve the sidewalk in its alleged dangerous condition and that they destroyed the evidence “with a culpable state of mind” (Duluc v AC & L Food Corp., 119 AD3d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted], l v denied 24 NY3d 908 [2014]).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 532, 27 N.Y.S.3d 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parra-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack