Ward v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ward v. City of New York

89 A.D.3d 532, 932 N.Y.2d 689

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

At trial, plaintiffs counsel unequivocally stated that the sole theory of recovery upon which plaintiffs claims were premised was that of prior written notice to the City. Therefore, plaintiff waived affirmative negligence as a theory of liability, and her arguments pertaining thereto are not preserved for review (see Spierer v Bloomingdale’s, 44 AD3d 336 [2007]).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to reopen.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

At trial, plaintiffs counsel unequivocally stated that the sole theory of recovery upon which plaintiffs claims were premised was that of prior written notice to the City. Therefore, plaintiff waived affirmative negligence as a theory of liability, and her arguments pertaining thereto are not preserved for review (see Spierer v Bloomingdale’s, 44 AD3d 336 [2007]).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to reopen.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Ward v. City of New York, 89 A.D.3d 532, 932 N.Y.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 532 (Ward v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related