Procida v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Procida v. City of New York

34 A.D.2d 556, 309 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5320

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 556 (Procida 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

Procida v. City of New York, 34 A.D.2d 556, 309 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, as amended by an order of said court entered May 8, 1967, in favor of plaintiff against it, upon a jury verdict, and dismissing its cross complaint against defendant Tomasetti, upon the decision of the trial court. Amended judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which is in plaintiff’s favor against the defendant City of New York and substituting therefor a provision that plaintiff’s complaint as against said defendant is dismissed. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the evidence presented was insufficient upon which to base an inference that the defendant City of New York had notice, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition (see Olsen v. City of New York, 30 A D 2d 812; McDermot v. City of New York, 287 F. 2d 49, 50). In view of our determination herein in favor of appellant against plaintiff, the portion of the amended judgment which dismissed appellant’s cross complaint against defendant Tomasetti should not be disturbed. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, as amended by an order of said court entered May 8, 1967, in favor of plaintiff against it, upon a jury verdict, and dismissing its cross complaint against defendant Tomasetti, upon the decision of the trial court. Amended judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the decretal paragraph which is in plaintiff’s favor against the defendant City of New York and substituting therefor a provision that plaintiff’s complaint as against said defendant is dismissed. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the evidence presented was insufficient upon which to base an inference that the defendant City of New York had notice, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition (see Olsen v. City of New York, 30 A D 2d 812; McDermot v. City of New York, 287 F. 2d 49, 50). In view of our determination herein in favor of appellant against plaintiff, the portion of the amended judgment which dismissed appellant’s cross complaint against defendant Tomasetti should not be disturbed. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 556, 309 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/procida-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack