Opinion
10-25-2016
Julie RAGOLIA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Aquifer Drilling and Testing, et al., Defendants.
Louis A. Badolato, Roslyn Harbor, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondents.
Louis A. Badolato, Roslyn Harbor, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Victoria Scalzo of counsel), for respondents.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered September 10, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant the City of New York's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The City made a prima facie showing that it did not have prior written notice of the defective roadway condition that allegedly caused plaintiff's bicycle accident, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7–201[c][2] ; Yarborough v. City
of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 726, 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873 [2008] ). Plaintiff's submission of a January 2010 inspection report was insufficient to show that the City had issued a “written acknowledgment” of the defect within the meaning of Administrative Code § 7–201(c)(2), since the report identifies a roadway defect at a different location. “[A]wareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident” (Espinosa v. JMG Realty Corp., 53 A.D.3d 408, 409, 861 N.Y.S.2d 333 [1st Dept.2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). In addition, plaintiff's expert's assumption that the City must have created the roadway defect because no permits had been issued is speculative (Baez v. City of New York, 278 A.D.2d 83, 83–84, 717 N.Y.S.2d 584 [1st Dept.2000] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.