Skates v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skates v. City of New York

304 A.D.2d 820, 757 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedApril 28, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 820 (Skates 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

Skates v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 820, 757 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated March 21, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell as a result of a defective condition in a roadway in Queens. The City of New York established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created the condition nor had prior written notice of the alleged defect (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241 [1995]; Kiernan v Thompson, 73 NY2d 840 [1988]; Nash v Village of Cedarhurst, 291 AD2d 485 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiffs speculative and conclusory allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to whether the City may have created the condition (see e.g. Nash v Village of Cedarhurst, supra; Stern v Incorporated Vil. of Flower Hill, 278 AD2d 225 [2000]; Verdes v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 253 AD2d 552 [1998]; Cattani v Incorporated Vil. of Ocean Beach, 252 AD2d 533 [1998]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the City dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, 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, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated March 21, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell as a result of a defective condition in a roadway in Queens. The City of New York established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created the condition nor had prior written notice of the alleged defect (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241 [1995]; Kiernan v Thompson, 73 NY2d 840 [1988]; Nash v Village of Cedarhurst, 291 AD2d 485 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiffs speculative and conclusory allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to whether the City may have created the condition (see e.g. Nash v Village of Cedarhurst, supra; Stern v Incorporated Vil. of Flower Hill, 278 AD2d 225 [2000]; Verdes v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 253 AD2d 552 [1998]; Cattani v Incorporated Vil. of Ocean Beach, 252 AD2d 533 [1998]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the City dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 820, 757 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skates-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack