Sparrock v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sparrock v. City of New York

242 A.D.2d 289, 661 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8258

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

DecidedAugust 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 289 (Sparrock 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

Sparrock v. City of New York, 242 A.D.2d 289, 661 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated May'20, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Philip Sparrock tripped and fell on a stairway in a park adjacent to the Kings County Supreme Court building. Contrary to his contention, any intra-departmental work orders submitted by a supervisor with the New York City Department of Parks which noted that the steps at issue were in disrepair would not satisfy the notice requirement of the “Pothole Law” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]; see, Laing v City of New York, 71 NY2d 912). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to establish that there was a manifest defect in the steps so as to put this case within the narrow exception to the rule requiring written notice (see, Ferris v County of Suffolk, 174 AD2d 70; Blake v City of Albany, 63 AD2d 1075, affd 48 NY2d 875). Since the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory condition precedent to bringing an action against the City for injuries arising from a defective condition (see, Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241), the trial court properly precluded evidence regarding their claim of negligent maintenance.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated May'20, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Philip Sparrock tripped and fell on a stairway in a park adjacent to the Kings County Supreme Court building. Contrary to his contention, any intra-departmental work orders submitted by a supervisor with the New York City Department of Parks which noted that the steps at issue were in disrepair would not satisfy the notice requirement of the “Pothole Law” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]; see, Laing v City of New York, 71 NY2d 912). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to establish that there was a manifest defect in the steps so as to put this case within the narrow exception to the rule requiring written notice (see, Ferris v County of Suffolk, 174 AD2d 70; Blake v City of Albany, 63 AD2d 1075, affd 48 NY2d 875). Since the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory condition precedent to bringing an action against the City for injuries arising from a defective condition (see, Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241), the trial court properly precluded evidence regarding their claim of negligent maintenance.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 289, 661 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparrock-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack