From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 14, 2007
43 A.D.3d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-05803.

August 14, 2007.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated May 26, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Dawn C. Wheeler of counsel), for appellant.

Steven Lee Zaslav, P.C., New York, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and Scott Shorr of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The defendant Keyspan Energy Corporation failed to meet its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that neither it nor its contractor caused or created the alleged defective condition, mounds of tar around a manhole cover, that purportedly caused the plaintiff's accident ( see Selby v City of New York, 34 AD3d 440; Cucuzza v City of New York, 2 AD3d 389; St. Clair v City of New York, 266 AD2d 277). Accordingly, its motion for summary judgment was properly denied.


Summaries of

Clark v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 14, 2007
43 A.D.3d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Clark v. City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY CLARK, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, KEYSPAN ENERGY…

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

Date published: Aug 14, 2007

Citations

43 A.D.3d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 6417
840 N.Y.S.2d 301

Citing Cases

RODD v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Felix has failed to meet its prima facie burden of proving that no issue of material fact exists regarding…

Smith v. Town of Brookhaven

In this regard, the Court notes that if Rosemar or Bimasco created the allegedly dangerous condition, then…