From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barbitsch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 14, 1997
241 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 14, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint and all cross claims are reinstated insofar as asserted against Larchwood Construction.

We find that the opposition papers submitted by the plaintiffs, including an affidavit of a licensed professional engineer, were sufficient to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether Larchwood Construction's preparation of tree pits along Central Avenue between 68th Street and 67th Place in Glendale, Queens, contributed to the creation of the defective condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff's accident ( see, e.g., Zayas v. Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 226 A.D.2d 713; see also, Manning v. New York Tel. Co., 157 A.D.2d 264).

Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barbitsch v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 14, 1997
241 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Barbitsch v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:HERTA BARBITSCH et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 14, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 527

Citing Cases

Sestak v. Hylan Datacom & Elec.

While Hylan argues that the City is responsible for cleaning and maintaining public roadways, this general…

Locastro v. City of N.Y.

The defendant seeking summary judgment in a slip and fall case has the burden of proving the condition was…