Puccini v. DiNapoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Puccini v. DiNapoli

91 A.D.3d 1182, 936 N.Y.2d 585

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1182 (Puccini v. DiNapoli) 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

Puccini v. DiNapoli, 91 A.D.3d 1182, 936 N.Y.2d 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

We confirm. The internal department reports referenced by petitioner as the only proof of timely notice of the April 6, 2006 incident were not admitted into evidence at the hearing and are, therefore, not properly a part of the record herein. With regard to the October 28, 2006 incident, substantial evidence in the record supports the findings that the hazard that led to petitioner’s injury existed for some time and the incident did not involve an unexpected event (see Matter of Kenny v DiNapoli, 11 NY3d 873, 875 [2008]; Matter of Sorrentino v DiNapoli, 74 AD3d 1694, 1695 [2010]).

Mercure, A.RJ., Peters, Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Lahtinen, J.

We confirm. The internal department reports referenced by petitioner as the only proof of timely notice of the April 6, 2006 incident were not admitted into evidence at the hearing and are, therefore, not properly a part of the record herein. With regard to the October 28, 2006 incident, substantial evidence in the record supports the findings that the hazard that led to petitioner’s injury existed for some time and the incident did not involve an unexpected event (see Matter of Kenny v DiNapoli, 11 NY3d 873, 875 [2008]; Matter of Sorrentino v DiNapoli, 74 AD3d 1694, 1695 [2010]).

Mercure, A.RJ., Peters, Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1182, 936 N.Y.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puccini-v-dinapoli-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack