AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

Anthony S. SACCO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent.

ANDRIAS

Raymond L. Mylott, Jr., New York, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Alan G. Krams of counsel), for respondent.

ANDRIAS, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, RICHTER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered November 18, 2009, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the cross motion denied.

In this trip and fall action, the motion court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that the City had not been provided with prior written notice, pursuant to Administrative Code § 7–201(c)(2), of the defective condition upon which plaintiff fell ( see Bruni v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 319, 326–327, 778 N.Y.S.2d 757, 811 N.E.2d 19 [2004] ). Plaintiff made an evidentiary showing that the City received an inspection report, dated November 2004, from its Parks Department, the agency responsible for repairing the subject walkway, showing that “it had knowledge of the condition and the danger it presented” ( id.). The report serves as an “acknowledgment from the city of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition” (§ 7–201 [c][2]; Bruni at 326–327, 778 N.Y.S.2d 757, 811 N.E.2d 19). Since the City had notice of a defect and failed to cure it, despite having an opportunity to do so, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted.

The motion court also erred in dismissing the complaint upon finding that plaintiff failed to identify precisely the site of his accident. Plaintiff described the location of his accident adequately in his affidavit and his bill of particulars, and submitted an expert engineer's affidavit attesting to the precise measurement of the accident site.

Motions to enlarge record and to strike reply brief denied.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Sacco v. City of New York
(Feb 16, 2012)