From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roa v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Nov 12, 2020
188 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

12349 Index No. 155116/2016 Case No. 2019-04312

11-12-2020

Belkys ROA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Pollack Pollack Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Christopher Soverow of counsel), for appellant. Cartafalsa Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Lesley C. Siskind of counsel), for Abner Properties Company, respondent. Office of Nadine Rivellese, New York (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for Consolidated Edison of New York, respondent.


Pollack Pollack Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Christopher Soverow of counsel), for appellant.

Cartafalsa Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Lesley C. Siskind of counsel), for Abner Properties Company, respondent.

Office of Nadine Rivellese, New York (Stephen T. Brewi of counsel), for Consolidated Edison of New York, respondent.

Gische, J.P., Gesmer, Kern, Kennedy, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Julio Rodriguez, III, J.), entered May 3, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Ed), unanimously affirmed, without costs. On January 17, 2016, plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a raised sidewalk flag. It is undisputed that Con Ed had a nondelegable duty under 34 RCNY 2–07(b)(1) to inspect and maintain the area around the sidewalk flag, as it was within 12 inches of Con Ed's grate (see Storper v. Kobe Club, 76 A.D.3d 426, 906 N.Y.S.2d 543 [1st Dept. 2010] ). However, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment against Con Ed, because she failed to establish constructive notice as a matter of law (see Ross v. Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 A.D.3d 419, 421, 927 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1st Dept. 2011] ). The 2011 Google map upon which plaintiff's expert relies to prove constructive notice is inconclusive. Moreover, Con Ed raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it had notice of the sidewalk defect by submitting evidence that it found no such defect when it inspected the grate on February 26, 2014, and testimony by the managing agent of the building abutting the sidewalk that he had never complained to Con Ed about any defect (see Early v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 73 A.D.3d 559, 561, 904 N.Y.S.2d 367 [1st Dept. 2010] ).


Summaries of

Roa v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Nov 12, 2020
188 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Roa v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:Belkys Roa, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The City of New York et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 12, 2020

Citations

188 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
134 N.Y.S.3d 348
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 6467

Citing Cases

Tianhua Xia v. 13602 Roosevelt Ave. LLC

The Highway Rules expressly provide that the "street" includes the "sidewalk" (34 RCNY § 2-01; Cruz v New…

Ryan v. The City of New York

The City does not outright dispute its ownership of the metal grate at issue, but cites to First Department…