Ryan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ryan v. City of New York

68 A.D.3d 613, 891 N.Y.2d 378

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 613 (Ryan 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

Ryan v. City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 613, 891 N.Y.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryder established prima facie that the problems with the brakes on the truck it maintained were unanticipated and that it exercised reasonable care to keep the brakes in good working order (see Normoyle v New York City Tr. Auth., 181 AD2d 498 [1992]). However, defendant Daily News, the owner of the truck, submitted evidence sufficient to raise issues of fact whether the brakes were defective and not properly maintained. Defendant Steven Grand, the driver of the truck, testified that the brakes on the truck failed. A police officer who responded to the accident observed a maladjustment on the slack adjuster, a mechanism that controlled the brake, and an oil leak on the hub of the truck. An expert retained by Daily News opined that the maladjustment and the oil leak could lead to brake failure and were indicative of improper maintenance or inspection of the truck. Although the expert did not inspect the truck, his opinions were sufficiently supported by photographs of the scene and the firsthand observations of the police officer. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Ryder established prima facie that the problems with the brakes on the truck it maintained were unanticipated and that it exercised reasonable care to keep the brakes in good working order (see Normoyle v New York City Tr. Auth., 181 AD2d 498 [1992]). However, defendant Daily News, the owner of the truck, submitted evidence sufficient to raise issues of fact whether the brakes were defective and not properly maintained. Defendant Steven Grand, the driver of the truck, testified that the brakes on the truck failed. A police officer who responded to the accident observed a maladjustment on the slack adjuster, a mechanism that controlled the brake, and an oil leak on the hub of the truck. An expert retained by Daily News opined that the maladjustment and the oil leak could lead to brake failure and were indicative of improper maintenance or inspection of the truck. Although the expert did not inspect the truck, his opinions were sufficiently supported by photographs of the scene and the firsthand observations of the police officer. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 613, 891 N.Y.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack