BY INSPECTION REPORT N.Y.C. HAD PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE CONDITION THAT CAUSED TRIP AND FALL VICTIM'S ACCIDENT

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Case: Anthony S. Sacco v. The City of New York

Date: Feb. 16, 2012

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Queens; Queens accident attorney)

**************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE RULE STRICTLY APPLIED AGAINST TOWN OF OYSTER BAY WHERE TRIP-AND-FALL ACCIDENT ON FLOATING WOODEN DOCK (Posted by Queens accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Nov 11, 2011)

DEFENSE DENIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSALS IN BUILDING ACCIDENT CASE; DECISION GIVES NO CLUE GIVEN AS TO NATURE OF DEFECT THAT CAUSED ACCIDENT (Posted by Queens accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Nov 19, 2011)

NO SHOWING THAT POTHOLE REPAIR DONE INCORRECTLY; NEW YORK CITY WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT & CASE DISMISSAL AGAINST ACCIDENT VICTIM (Posted by Queens accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Dec 19, 2011)

CITY OF NEW YORK LOSES SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN SLIP-AND-FALL ACCIDENT CASE, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ITS BURDEN AS MOVANT (Posted by Queens accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Dec 29, 2011)

**************************************************

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 Sec. 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" (Sec. 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.

Categories