Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

HAXHAJ v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Dec 22, 2009
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Plaintiffs were unable to show that defendant City, whose duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition is nondelegable ( see Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623; McAllen v City of New York, 270 AD2d 43), had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the pathway (Administrative Code of City of NY ยง 7-201 [c]), or that either defendant had created the defect through its own affirmative negligence. They further failed to demonstrate that any circumstances exist under which CPC, a contractor, could have owed a duty of care to them ( see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). The agreement between the defendants did not indicate that CPC assumed any duty of the City to maintain the premises in a safe condition.

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

[Prior Case History: 19 Misc 3d 1135(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51009(U).]