From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. the City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-1

James LEWIS, Plaintiff-Respondent,v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants,Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Defendant–Respondent.


Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, New York (Anita D. Bowen of counsel), for appellants.Richard N. Slater & Associates, LLC, New York (Richard N. Slater of counsel), for James Lewis, respondent.Richard Babinecz, New York (Helman R. Brook of counsel), for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered June 2, 2010, which, in this personal injury action arising from a fall on a portion of a sidewalk immediately adjacent to a metal grate owned by defendant Consolidated Edison, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence claim and Con Ed's cross claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them.

Defendants-appellants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that they did not have the “ability to exercise control” over the sidewalk defect that allegedly caused plaintiff's fall ( Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204, 207, 659 N.Y.S.2d 250, 681 N.E.2d 417 [1997]; Hurley v. Related Mgt. Co., 74 A.D.3d 648, 649, 904 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2010] ).

In opposition, plaintiff and Con Edison failed to raise an issue of fact. As the undisputed owner of the subject grate, Con Edison had exclusive maintenance responsibility over the grate and the area extending 12 inches outward from the perimeter of the grate (34 RCNY 2–07[b][1],[2] ), which included the alleged sidewalk defect that caused plaintiff's fall. Accordingly, only Con Edison, and not defendants-appellants, may be liable for plaintiff's injuries ( see Storper v. Kobe Club, 76 A.D.3d 426, 427, 906 N.Y.S.2d 543 [2010]; Hurley, 74 A.D.3d at 649, 904 N.Y.S.2d 41).

GONZALEZ, P.J., TOM, SWEENY, RENWICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lewis v. the City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Lewis v. the City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:James LEWIS, Plaintiff-Respondent,v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7679
931 N.Y.S.2d 855

Citing Cases

Karten v. 500-512 Seventh Ave. LP

. See Lewis v. City of New York, 89 A.D.3d 410, 411 (1st Dep't 2011). The definition of a "street" as used in…

Doyley v. Steiner

We have generally held that an issue of fact exists whether such equipment constitutes a special use of the…