Waner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waner v. City of New York

5 A.D.3d 288, 773 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3445

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 288 (Waner 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

Waner v. City of New York, 5 A.D.3d 288, 773 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered December 10, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law went unrebutted by plaintiff, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The markings relied upon by plaintiff on the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee map are insufficient to raise any triable issue as to whether defendant had notice of the particular hazard alleged (see Camacho v City of New York, 218 AD2d 725, 726 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered December 10, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law went unrebutted by plaintiff, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The markings relied upon by plaintiff on the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee map are insufficient to raise any triable issue as to whether defendant had notice of the particular hazard alleged (see Camacho v City of New York, 218 AD2d 725, 726 [1995]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 288, 773 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waner-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack