Pressley v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pressley v. New York City Housing Authority

238 A.D.2d 191, 656 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713

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

DecidedApril 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 191 (Pressley v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Pressley v. New York City Housing Authority, 238 A.D.2d 191, 656 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Tar gum, J.), entered June 11,1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

In response to defendant’s uncontested assertions that none of the parties had actual notice of the dangerous cockleburs, which had dropped from trees to the sidewalk prior to plaintiff’s fall, plaintiff asserts that the defendant had constructive knowledge of their dangerous accumulation for a sufficient length of time such that it had a duty to clear the walkway (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). However, the deposition testimony of the superintendent of the property, concerning his inspection and maintenance of the walkways, does not raise a triable issue as to such notice (Capone v Schaible, 211 AD2d 661). We find no basis for distinguishing Capone, a case involving the accumulation of leaves or twigs, on the basis of the frequency of inspections conducted on the grounds. Given plaintiff’s concession that she did not see the objects before her fall, it would require speculation to conclude that more frequent inspections would have reduced the danger.

We have considered and rejected the plaintiff’s additional claims. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Tar gum, J.), entered June 11,1996, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

In response to defendant’s uncontested assertions that none of the parties had actual notice of the dangerous cockleburs, which had dropped from trees to the sidewalk prior to plaintiff’s fall, plaintiff asserts that the defendant had constructive knowledge of their dangerous accumulation for a sufficient length of time such that it had a duty to clear the walkway (see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). However, the deposition testimony of the superintendent of the property, concerning his inspection and maintenance of the walkways, does not raise a triable issue as to such notice (Capone v Schaible, 211 AD2d 661). We find no basis for distinguishing Capone, a case involving the accumulation of leaves or twigs, on the basis of the frequency of inspections conducted on the grounds. Given plaintiff’s concession that she did not see the objects before her fall, it would require speculation to conclude that more frequent inspections would have reduced the danger.

We have considered and rejected the plaintiff’s additional claims. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 191, 656 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pressley-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack