From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Justice v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2004
8 A.D.3d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-09652.

Decided June 1, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 9, 2003, as granted the cross motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Wild Springer, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Sharon Weintraub Dashow of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo, Afsaan Saleem, and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York.

The plaintiff Robert Justice (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured on June 29, 1992, when a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Orville Germain collided with the injured plaintiff's vehicle at the intersection of Flatlands Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue in Brooklyn. The traffic signal at that intersection was not functioning properly at the time of the accident.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the defendant City of New York (hereinafter the City) to file its cross motion for summary judgment beyond the time limit provided by CPLR 3212(a) ( see Boehme v. A.P.P.L.E., A Program Planned for Life Enrichment, 298 A.D.2d 540; Goodman v. Gudi, 264 A.D.2d 758).

However, the Supreme Court improperly granted the City's cross motion for summary judgment, since the City failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it did not have constructive notice of the malfunctioning traffic signal before the accident ( see Praeger v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 74 A.D.2d 844, affd 53 N.Y.2d 854). Furthermore, the City failed to establish that the intervening acts of the injured plaintiff and Germain were the superseding cause of the accident ( see Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308; Pomeroy v. Buccina, 289 A.D.2d 944).

FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and FISHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Justice v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 2004
8 A.D.3d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Justice v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT JUSTICE, ET AL., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 1, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
777 N.Y.S.2d 664

Citing Cases

Zu-Hua Lin v. City of N.Y

Moreover, evidence was offered that, prior to the accident, the City received only a single report of a…

Tyberg v. City of New York

The City also failed to establish that the studies addressed the specific concern of schoolchildren crossing…