Zetlin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zetlin v. City of New York

210 A.D.2d 5, 618 N.Y.S.2d 812

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 5 (Zetlin 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

Zetlin v. City of New York, 210 A.D.2d 5, 618 N.Y.S.2d 812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered December 30, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A question of fact exists as to whether defendant-appellant’s employees negligently repaired the portion of the municipal sidewalk on which plaintiff allegedly fell (see, Botfeld v City of New York, 162 AD2d 652). Defendant-appellant’s building superintendent testified at a deposition that building workers had regularly repaired any cracks or holes in the abutting public sidewalk, and that on an unknown date prior to the plaintiff’s accident they had cement-patched an area of the sidewalk that appears to have been connected to the hole at the edge of the curb in which plaintiff claimed she tripped. He further testified that part of that area was "rutted” because only a "superficial” cement-patching job had been done. Under these circumstances, there exists an issue of fact as to whether defendant-appellant’s employees failed to properly cement-patch the hole at the edge of the curb as well as the connecting portion of the sidewalk. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin 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 (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered December 30, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A question of fact exists as to whether defendant-appellant’s employees negligently repaired the portion of the municipal sidewalk on which plaintiff allegedly fell (see, Botfeld v City of New York, 162 AD2d 652). Defendant-appellant’s building superintendent testified at a deposition that building workers had regularly repaired any cracks or holes in the abutting public sidewalk, and that on an unknown date prior to the plaintiff’s accident they had cement-patched an area of the sidewalk that appears to have been connected to the hole at the edge of the curb in which plaintiff claimed she tripped. He further testified that part of that area was "rutted” because only a "superficial” cement-patching job had been done. Under these circumstances, there exists an issue of fact as to whether defendant-appellant’s employees failed to properly cement-patch the hole at the edge of the curb as well as the connecting portion of the sidewalk. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 5, 618 N.Y.S.2d 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zetlin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack