Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anthony S. Sacco v. the City of New York

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 16, 2012

ANTHONY S. SACCO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Sacco v City of New York

Decided on February 16, 2012

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

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 NY3d 319, 326-327 [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). 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.

M-1873 Anthony S. Sacco v The City of New York

M-1903 Motions to enlarge record and to strike reply brief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2012

CLERK

20120216

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.