Silverio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverio v. City of New York

100 A.D.3d 543, 954 N.Y.S.2d 517

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 543 (Silverio 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

Silverio v. City of New York, 100 A.D.3d 543, 954 N.Y.S.2d 517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered June 29, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted since plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had received prior written notice of the sidewalk defect that allegedly caused plaintiffs fall and resultant injuries (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]; Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241, 243 [1995]). The violation notices cited by plaintiff, dated 15 and 28 years before the accident, were too remote in time, and were superseded by a Big Apple map filed in 2001, which failed to depict any defect (id. at 244). Moreover, the notices relied upon by plaintiff fail to specify the defective condition, and indicate that they relate to an address other than the location of the defect referred to by plaintiff in his notice of claim, complaint and testimony. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered June 29, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted since plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had received prior written notice of the sidewalk defect that allegedly caused plaintiffs fall and resultant injuries (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]; Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241, 243 [1995]). The violation notices cited by plaintiff, dated 15 and 28 years before the accident, were too remote in time, and were superseded by a Big Apple map filed in 2001, which failed to depict any defect (id. at 244). Moreover, the notices relied upon by plaintiff fail to specify the defective condition, and indicate that they relate to an address other than the location of the defect referred to by plaintiff in his notice of claim, complaint and testimony. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 543, 954 N.Y.S.2d 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverio-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack