Barker v. Tennis 59th, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Barker v. Tennis 59th, Inc.

    62 N.Y.2d 802 (N.Y. 1984)

    Decided May 8, 1984 Appeal from (1st dept: 99 A.D.2d 999) FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

  2. Byrd v. State of New York

    206 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    The testimony of the park manager demonstrated that the State fulfilled its duty to maintain the park in a safe condition by conducting daily inspections and correcting defects as soon as possible if not immediately. The State, however, was not required to correct every defect in the park area (see, Drew v. State of New York, 146 A.D.2d 847). In order for the claimant to successfully prove her allegations of negligence, she had to show that the State knew of the defect which caused the accident or that it existed for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, the State should have known of the defect (see, Barker v. Tennis 59th, 99 A.D.2d 999). There is no evidence in the record that notice of the presence of the alleged defective condition had been conveyed to the State's representatives. On the contrary, the State produced evidence that it had not received complaints concerning the area.