Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Scandiffio v. City of New York

Sup Ct, New York County

August 12, 2013

DON SCANDIFFIO, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants. Index No. 112649/2010

Unpublished Opinion

DECISION ORDER

KATHRYN FREED JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT

RECITATION, AS REQUIRED BY CPLR§2219 (a), OF THE PAPERS CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW OF THIS MOTION.

PAPERS NUMBERED

NOTICE OF MOTION AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED...........................1-3..........

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED..................................

ANSWERING AFFIDAVITS.........................................................................4...........

REPLYING AFFIDAVITS.............................................................................5...........

EXHIBITS....................................................................................................................

OTHER.......................................................................................................................

UPON THE FOREGOING CITED PAPERS, THIS DECISION/ORDER ON THE MOTION IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff initially moved for an Order compelling defendant The City of New York to respond to his Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated July 11, 2012. He claimed that the pothole which caused his accident had been subsequently repaired and thus, he demanded the production of any records of notice and repair. In response, the Court issued a written order directing in pertinent part, that Defendant City "shall review DOT records regarding the repair of the pothole in question & shall produce any records of notice and repair from June 2009 until March 31, 2010. If none exist, an affidavit will be provided. The above to be completed within 60 days...."

At the time of said motion to compel, the City had cross-moved for an Order pursuant to CPLR§3211(a)(7), dismissing plaintiffs complaint, or in the alternative, granting it summary judgment pursuant to CPLR§3212. Since the motion to compel has already been addressed, the Court now turns its attention to said cross-motion.

After a review of the papers presented, all relevant statutes and case law, the Court denies the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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