Willis v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willis v. City of New York

107 A.D.2d 747, 484 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42655

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 747 (Willis 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

Willis v. City of New York, 107 A.D.2d 747, 484 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs and corporate defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated May 7, 1984, which granted the defendant City of New York’s motion for leave to amend its answer and dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against the city.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under subdivision 3.4 of section 349-c and section 349-d of the Highway Law, the State, and not the city, had jurisdiction over Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn during its reconstruction when the accident occurred (see Farrell v Town of North Salem, 205 NY 453; Allen v Village of Holley, 226 App Div 294).

The doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be applied to estop the city from asserting that the State, rather than the city, was responsible for maintaining the site of the accident. Appellants have made no showing of prejudice or surprise (see Quaglia v Incorporated Vil. of Munsey Park, 54 AD2d 434, affd 44 NY2d 772). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs and corporate defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated May 7, 1984, which granted the defendant City of New York’s motion for leave to amend its answer and dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against the city.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under subdivision 3.4 of section 349-c and section 349-d of the Highway Law, the State, and not the city, had jurisdiction over Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn during its reconstruction when the accident occurred (see Farrell v Town of North Salem, 205 NY 453; Allen v Village of Holley, 226 App Div 294).

The doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be applied to estop the city from asserting that the State, rather than the city, was responsible for maintaining the site of the accident. Appellants have made no showing of prejudice or surprise (see Quaglia v Incorporated Vil. of Munsey Park, 54 AD2d 434, affd 44 NY2d 772). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 747, 484 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack