Wasser v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wasser v. City of New York

251 A.D.2d 173, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295

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

DecidedJune 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 173 (Wasser 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

Wasser v. City of New York, 251 A.D.2d 173, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered December 3, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall in a crosswalk allegedly caused by a defective expansion joint installed by [174]*174defendant-appellant contractor, insofar as appealed from, denied the contractor’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert engineer identifying specific provisions of the contract that the contractor violated is more than adequate to raise an issue of fact as to contract compliance. Given the nature of the asserted defects, including use of a nonconforming tar filler and the absence of any sealer at the accident area, and the testimony of the contractor’s representative that the tar filler used would last “indefinitely”, we reject the contractor’s argument that plaintiffs expert’s affidavit lacks probative value. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered December 3, 1997, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall in a crosswalk allegedly caused by a defective expansion joint installed by [174]*174defendant-appellant contractor, insofar as appealed from, denied the contractor’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert engineer identifying specific provisions of the contract that the contractor violated is more than adequate to raise an issue of fact as to contract compliance. Given the nature of the asserted defects, including use of a nonconforming tar filler and the absence of any sealer at the accident area, and the testimony of the contractor’s representative that the tar filler used would last “indefinitely”, we reject the contractor’s argument that plaintiffs expert’s affidavit lacks probative value. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 173, 673 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasser-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.