From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sarvis v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 10, 2012
94 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-10

Dakarai SARVIS, etc., et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants-respondents,Queens Borough Public Library, appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner and Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for appellant. Leav & Steinberg, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniela F. Henriques and Lennon C. Edwards of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.


Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner and Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for appellant. Leav & Steinberg, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniela F. Henriques and Lennon C. Edwards of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Gregory S. Katz and Nicholas P. Hurzeler of counsel), for defendant-respondent City of New York.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Queens Borough Public Library appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated December 1, 2010, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The infant plaintiff tripped and fell over an alleged defect on a sidewalk abutting property occupied by the defendant Queens Borough Public Library (hereinafter QBPL). As a result, the infant plaintiff, by his mother, and his mother, suing derivatively, commenced this action against, among others, the City of New York and QBPL. QBPL moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the City, and not it, owned the subject property and, thus, under section 7–210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, QBPL could not be held liable for the infant plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court denied QBPL's motion.

As the Supreme Court correctly concluded, QBPL's submissions were insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the City, and not it, owned the subject property ( see Wright v. C.H. Martin of White Plains Rd., Inc., 23 A.D.3d 295, 296, 808 N.Y.S.2d 21; Simmons v. Elmcrest Homeowners' Assn., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 447, 783 N.Y.S.2d 384). Thus, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642), QBPL's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it was properly denied.

RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sarvis v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 10, 2012
94 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Sarvis v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:Dakarai SARVIS, etc., et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Apr 10, 2012

Citations

94 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
941 N.Y.S.2d 866
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2665

Citing Cases

Quezada v. Structure Tone, Inc.

In support of the motion, Vornado and SL Green submitted, inter alia, conclusory deposition testimony and…

Carrion v. 350-52 S. Fourth St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The…