From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 9, 2019
172 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

9266 Index 161424/13

05-09-2019

Antwan THOMPSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Zachary S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.


Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Zachary S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered January 10, 2018, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell on broken and uneven pavement, by showing that it did not have prior written notice of the dangerous or defective condition (see Jones v. City of New York, 159 A.D.3d 571, 70 N.Y.S.3d 45 [1st Dept. 2018] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. There is no evidence that defendant actually applied a cold patch instead of, as it claims, a hot patch when it cured the condition approximately six months prior to plaintiff's accident (see id. at 572, 70 N.Y.S.3d 45 ; Abott v. City of New York, 114 A.D.3d 515, 980 N.Y.S.2d 440 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Even if defendant had applied a cold patch, and only temporarily cured the condition, plaintiff has offered no evidence that doing so was inadequate, or that such allegedly inadequate repairs immediately resulted in the dangerous condition that caused his accident (see Davison v. City of Buffalo, 96 A.D.3d 1516, 1518, 947 N.Y.S.2d 702 [4th Dept. 2012] ; see generally Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 726, 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873 [2008] ). In any event, plaintiff has disclaimed this theory of liability on appeal.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Thompson v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 9, 2019
172 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Thompson v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:Antwan Thompson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The City of New York…

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

Date published: May 9, 2019

Citations

172 A.D.3d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
172 A.D.3d 485
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 3674

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. The City of New York

Plaintiffs own testimony reveals that he did not even know when the roadway was freshly paved. Any inference…

Graham v. City of Syracuse

The exception is limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous…