Spencer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spencer v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 2951, 149 A.D.3d 557, 52 N.Y.S.3d 342

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

DecidedApril 18, 2017

Docket3768 117844/09 590577/11

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2951 (Spencer 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

Spencer v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 2951, 149 A.D.3d 557, 52 N.Y.S.3d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered May 4, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, inter alia, denied defendant the City of New York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the City’s motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff allegedly fell when his foot became caught in a crack on a sidewalk in front of a building owned by defendant Jaeger. The crack was next to a metal plate, or marker, owned by the City. The City is entitled to summary judgment, because it established that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective sidewalk and that none of the exceptions to the statutory rule requiring such notice applied (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]). The marker on the sidewalk did not confer a special use or benefit upon the City, and *558 therefore the “special use” exception does not apply (see Amabile, 93 NY2d at 474; see also Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 890 [2007]; Chambers v City of New York, 147 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2017]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered May 4, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, inter alia, denied defendant the City of New York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the City’s motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff allegedly fell when his foot became caught in a crack on a sidewalk in front of a building owned by defendant Jaeger. The crack was next to a metal plate, or marker, owned by the City. The City is entitled to summary judgment, because it established that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective sidewalk and that none of the exceptions to the statutory rule requiring such notice applied (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]). The marker on the sidewalk did not confer a special use or benefit upon the City, and *558 therefore the “special use” exception does not apply (see Amabile, 93 NY2d at 474; see also Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 890 [2007]; Chambers v City of New York, 147 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2017]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2951, 149 A.D.3d 557, 52 N.Y.S.3d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack