Waner v. City of New York

5 A.D.3d 288, 773 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3445
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 2004·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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).

5 A.D.3d 288 (Waner v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fisch v. City of New York
2021 NY Slip Op 03021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Daniels v. City of New York
91 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ortiz v. City of New York
67 A.D.3d 21 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
D'Onofrio v. City of New York
41 A.D.3d 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Roldan v. City of New York
36 A.D.3d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)