Vega v. 103 Thayer Street, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vega v. 103 Thayer Street, LLC

105 A.D.3d 405, 961 N.Y.S.2d 467

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

DecidedApril 2, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 405 (Vega v. 103 Thayer Street, LLC) 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

Vega v. 103 Thayer Street, LLC, 105 A.D.3d 405, 961 N.Y.S.2d 467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about June 23, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant City’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 17, 2012, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination, reversed, on the law, without costs, and the City’s cross motion denied.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell as a result of a hole in a pedestrian ramp. The City failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, because the markings on the Big Apple map it submitted in support of its cross motion raise an issue of fact as to whether it had prior written notice of the alleged defect {see Cruzado v City of New York, 80 AD3d 537, 538 [1st Dept 2011]; Burwell v City of New York, 97 AD3d 617, 618-619 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 860 [2013]). Concur—Sweeny, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about June 23, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant City’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 17, 2012, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination, reversed, on the law, without costs, and the City’s cross motion denied.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell as a result of a hole in a pedestrian ramp. The City failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, because the markings on the Big Apple map it submitted in support of its cross motion raise an issue of fact as to whether it had prior written notice of the alleged defect {see Cruzado v City of New York, 80 AD3d 537, 538 [1st Dept 2011]; Burwell v City of New York, 97 AD3d 617, 618-619 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 860 [2013]). Concur—Sweeny, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 405, 961 N.Y.S.2d 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vega-v-103-thayer-street-llc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack