Opinion
2016–05001 Index No. 100978/14
01-23-2019
Monique SADA, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
Krentsel & Guzman, LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael Zhu ], of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Aaron M. Bloom and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
Krentsel & Guzman, LLP (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael Zhu ], of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Aaron M. Bloom and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On February 4, 2014, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when she stepped off the sidewalk into a water catch basin located on a street in Staten Island. She commenced this action against the City of New York to recover damages for personal injuries. The City moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint on the ground, inter alia, that the City did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect as required by section 7–201(c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7–201(c)(2) "limits the City's duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for those defects or hazardous conditions which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location" ( Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 241, 243, 638 N.Y.S.2d 593, 661 N.E.2d 1374 ; see Puzhayeva v. City of New York, 151 A.D.3d 988, 990, 58 N.Y.S.3d 92 ; Gellman v. Cooke, 148 A.D.3d 1117, 1118, 51 N.Y.S.3d 549 ; Williams v. City of New York, 134 A.D.3d 809, 809, 20 N.Y.S.3d 628 ). "[P]rior written notice of a defect is a condition precedent which [a] plaintiff is required to plead and prove to maintain an action against the City" ( Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d at 243, 638 N.Y.S.2d 593, 661 N.E.2d 1374 ; see Puzhayeva v. City of New York, 151 A.D.3d at 988, 58 N.Y.S.3d 92 ; Gellman v. Cooke, 148 A.D.3d at 1118, 51 N.Y.S.3d 549 ).
The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, evidence that a search of New York City Department of Transportation records revealed that the City had not received any prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition (see Puzhayeva v. City of New York, 151 A.D.3d at 991, 58 N.Y.S.3d 92 ; Gellman v. Cooke, 148 A.D.3d at 1118, 51 N.Y.S.3d 549 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gellman v. Cooke, 148 A.D.3d at 1118, 51 N.Y.S.3d 549 ; Khemraj v. City of New York, 37 A.D.3d 419, 420, 829 N.Y.S.2d 621 ).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.