Opinion
9364 Index 303184/13
05-21-2019
Reyna Martinez VARGAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent.
Budin, Reisman, Kupferberg & Bernstein, LLP, New York (Gregory C. McMahon of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
Budin, Reisman, Kupferberg & Bernstein, LLP, New York (Gregory C. McMahon of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Webber, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about March 19, 2018, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when her bicycle hit a hole in the road, causing her to fall. Defendants submitted evidence showing that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7–201[c][2]; 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 a triable issue of fact. Her claim that defendant's alleged negligent repair of other defects on the same road raised an issue of fact as to whether it had prior notice of the subject defect is unavailing, since "[t]he awareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident" ( Roldan v. City of New York, 36 A.D.3d 484, 484, 831 N.Y.S.2d 110 [1st Dept. 2007] ). There was also no evidence that an allegedly negligent repair of the road immediately caused the defect that led to plaintiff's injuries, and plaintiff's claim to the contrary is speculative (see Martin v. City of New York, 158 A.D.3d 527, 68 N.Y.S.3d 705 [1st Dept. 2018] ).