From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kempler v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 2000
272 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 30, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated July 7, 1999, which granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: O'Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proffering a copy of the most recent "Big Apple" map which had been filed with the Department of Transportation before the plaintiff's accident. That map did not show a defect at the location where the plaintiff allegedly fell ( see, Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 241; Civello v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 353). Furthermore, the intra-departmental work order submitted by an engineer with the New York City Department of Education did not satisfy the notice requirement of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c) ( see, Laing v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 339, affd 71 N.Y.2d 912; Sparrock v. City of New York, 242 A.D.2d 289).


Summaries of

Kempler v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 2000
272 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Kempler v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:DONALD KEMPLER, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: May 30, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 818

Citing Cases

Zygnerski v. City of New York

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint since…

Rosenblum v. City of New York

Consequently, City has established, prima facie, that it had no prior written notice of the pothole, and…