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.

Haulsey v. City of New York

Supreme Court, New York County

August 14, 2013

SANDRA HAULSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., and NICO ASPHALT PAVING, INC., Defendants. Index No. 111382/2009

Unpublished Opinion

DECISION/ORDER

KATHRYN E. FREED JUDGE

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................... ......1-2 (Exs. C-K)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED..................................
ANSWERING AFFIDAVITS.........................................................................3 (Exs. A-D)
REPLYING AFFIDAVITS............................................................................4...........
OTHER..........................................................................................................................
UPON THE FOREGOING CITED PAPERS, THIS DECISION/ORDER ON THE MOTION IS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendant The City of New York ("the City"), moves for an Order pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7), dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, or in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR§ 3212, granting summary judgment. Plaintiff and co-defendant Nico Asphalt Paving, Inc. ("Nico") oppose.

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

Factual and procedural background

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained on December 10, 2009, when she tripped and fell on a pothole in the crosswalk of West 143rd Street along the west side of Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard in New York County. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced the instant action via service of a Summons and Complaint on or about August 11, 2009. The City served its Answer on or about September 4, 2009. The co-defendants also served their respective Answers. On August 5, 2009, plaintiff appeared for a General Municipal Law§ 50-h ...


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.