Poplaski v. City of New York

113 A.D.3d 449, 977 N.Y.2d 890

Opinion

The third-party defendants, a re-grading contractor and a repaving contractor, established prima facie that the work they performed did not cause or create the defect that plaintiff claims caused his accident (see Jones v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 95 AD3d 659 [1st Dept 2012]). Con Edison has failed to raise an issue about a height differential between its grate and the surrounding roadway that allegedly caused the rear wheel of plaintiff’s scooter to lose traction. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.

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

Poplaski v. City of New York, 113 A.D.3d 449, 977 N.Y.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

113 A.D.3d 449 (Poplaski v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
95 A.D.3d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)