From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yates v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 2007
37 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2005-07095.

February 6, 2007.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated June 2, 2005, as, upon reargument, granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

James Newman, Bronx, N.Y. (Dennis A. Bengels of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.

White McSpedon, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Tracey Lyn Jarzombek of counsel), for third-party defendant.

HOWARD MILLER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, MARK C. DILLON, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JJ.

Before: Miller, J.P., Florio, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On December 4, 1998 Benjamin Yates suffered fatal injuries when he was struck by a falling lamppost. At the time of the accident, he was working as a laborer for third-party defendant Vales Construction Company, which was operating under contract with the defendant City of New York, to remove and replace a section of the sidewalk adjacent to the lamppost. "To hold a property owner liable for an accident caused by a dangerous or defective condition on the property, a plaintiff must establish that the owner created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it" ( Dulgov v City of New York, 33 AD3d 584; see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836). Here the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting affidavits of its expert as well as certain records, which together demonstrated that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition ( see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, supra; Dulgov v City of New York, supra). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Evidence of a subsequent design modification with respect to newly installed lampposts is inadmissible to demonstrate that the original design was defective ( see Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261, 270-274; DePasquale v Morbark Indus., 221 AD2d 409, 410).


Summaries of

Yates v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 6, 2007
37 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Yates v. City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:WINSOME YATES, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (And a…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 6, 2007

Citations

37 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1108
831 N.Y.S.2d 186

Citing Cases

Great N. Ins. Co. v. Nelson

Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the Building Defendants' negligence is established because,…

Gersbeck v. Rodgers

Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible as proof of negligence or culpability because it…