Schaal v. City of Utica

New York Court of Appeals

Schaal v. City of Utica

820 N.E.2d 276, 3 N.Y.3d 727, 786 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 2446

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 820 N.E.2d 276 (Schaal v. City of Utica) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schaal v. City of Utica, 820 N.E.2d 276, 3 N.Y.3d 727, 786 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 2446 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division correctly determined that plaintiffs speculative assertions failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to defendant City of Utica’s alleged creation of a dangerous sidewalk condition. Similarly, plaintiff adduced no evidence in support of the theory that defendant hotel had a duty to maintain the public sidewalk adjoining its property because the hotel used the sidewalk for a special purpose (see generally Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 315 [1995]). In light of the completion of discovery in an earlier action involving the same allegations and parties and plaintiffs failure to request additional discovery in this action, summary judgment was not prematurely granted (see Chemical Bank v PIC Motors Corp., 58 NY2d 1023, 1026 [1983]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division correctly determined that plaintiffs speculative assertions failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to defendant City of Utica’s alleged creation of a dangerous sidewalk condition. Similarly, plaintiff adduced no evidence in support of the theory that defendant hotel had a duty to maintain the public sidewalk adjoining its property because the hotel used the sidewalk for a special purpose (see generally Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 315 [1995]). In light of the completion of discovery in an earlier action involving the same allegations and parties and plaintiffs failure to request additional discovery in this action, summary judgment was not prematurely granted (see Chemical Bank v PIC Motors Corp., 58 NY2d 1023, 1026 [1983]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 N.E.2d 276, 3 N.Y.3d 727, 786 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 2446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaal-v-city-of-utica-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack