Pena v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pena v. City of Yonkers

82 A.D.3d 728, 917 N.Y.2d 903

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 728 (Pena v. City of Yonkers) 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

Pena v. City of Yonkers, 82 A.D.3d 728, 917 N.Y.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when her right foot came into contact with a piece of metal protruding from the grassy area of a public sidewalk.

The defendant, City of Yonkers, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect (see Charter of City of Yonkers § C24-11; Lawler v City of Yonkers, 45 AD3d 813 [2007]; Rochford v City of Yonkers, 12 AD3d 433 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact because they offered only speculation that the defendant created the alleged defect (see Patti v Town of N. Hempstead, 23 AD3d 362 [2005]; Regan v City of New York, 8 AD3d 462 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for [729]*729summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Covello, J.E, Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when her right foot came into contact with a piece of metal protruding from the grassy area of a public sidewalk.

The defendant, City of Yonkers, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect (see Charter of City of Yonkers § C24-11; Lawler v City of Yonkers, 45 AD3d 813 [2007]; Rochford v City of Yonkers, 12 AD3d 433 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact because they offered only speculation that the defendant created the alleged defect (see Patti v Town of N. Hempstead, 23 AD3d 362 [2005]; Regan v City of New York, 8 AD3d 462 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for [729]*729summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Covello, J.E, Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 728, 917 N.Y.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack