From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brill v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09075

Argued April 28, 2003.

May 19, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated September 11, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Palmeri Gaven, New York, N.Y. (John J. Palmeri of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Deborah Weiss of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant City of New York (hereinafter the City) established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have written notice of any defect in the sidewalk at the location where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell and that it did not create the alleged defective condition (see Gruska v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 498; Kempler v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 584). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. A "Big Apple" map indicating defects in the sidewalk adjacent to the area of the accident did not provide sufficient notice of the alleged defect at the location of the fall and therefore did not satisfy the written notice requirement of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) (see Curci v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 574; Goldston v. Town of Babylon, 145 A.D.2d 534; Leary v. City of Rochester, 115 A.D.2d 260, affd 67 N.Y.2d 866).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining the City's untimely motion for summary judgment (see Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 124; Samuel v. A.T.P. Dev. Corp., 276 A.D.2d 685).

ALTMAN, J.P., COZIER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brill v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 2003
305 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Brill v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ONA BRILL, ET AL., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 19, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 346

Citing Cases

Golotin v. Tomlex Realty LLC

By a Centralized Compliance Part order, dated February 4, 2019, the Hon. Lizette Colon, A.J.S.C., denied…

Vertsberger v. City of N.Y

n of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiffs fall, and whether the alleged, defect is designated on the…