From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cashwell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 2001
281 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued February 2, 2001.

March 12, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered October 21, 1999, which, upon denying its motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the evidence to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $316,000.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and Julie Steiner of counsel), for appellant.

C. Robinson Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (W. Charles Robinson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the motions of the defendant City of New York to dismiss for failure to make out a prima facie case. Whether a municipality failed to remove snow within a reasonable period of time is a question for the fact-finder (see, Gonzalez v. City of New York, 148 A.D.2d 668, 670). The evidence before the jury was sufficient for it to rationally find in the plaintiff's favor (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499).


Summaries of

Cashwell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 2001
281 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Cashwell v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CAROLYN CASHWELL, RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 556

Citing Cases

Gannon v. All Car Movers, Ltd.

Additionally, the jury could rationally conclude that the lessor possessed notice of the ice patch because…