Schimicci v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schimicci v. City of New York

33 A.D.3d 687, 821 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 687 (Schimicci 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

Schimicci v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 687, 821 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the [688]*688defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 10, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that it never received prior written notice of the alleged street defect at issue in this case. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion, which included an expert affidavit relying upon photographs and other competent evidence, raised a triable issue of fact with regard to whether the defendant affirmatively created the alleged defect (see e.g. Ealey v City of New York, 16 AD3d 543 [2005]; Simpson v Tenore & Guglielmo, 287 AD2d 613 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ, concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the [688]*688defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 10, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that it never received prior written notice of the alleged street defect at issue in this case. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion, which included an expert affidavit relying upon photographs and other competent evidence, raised a triable issue of fact with regard to whether the defendant affirmatively created the alleged defect (see e.g. Ealey v City of New York, 16 AD3d 543 [2005]; Simpson v Tenore & Guglielmo, 287 AD2d 613 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 687, 821 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schimicci-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack