From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Puma v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 2007
36 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 9992.

January 23, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered September 8, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Choi-Hausman of counsel), for appellant.

Marie R. Hodukavich, Peekskill, for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.


Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a path maintained by defendant for that purpose when he struck a three-foot-tall steel bollard in the middle of the path. Photographs submitted by plaintiff with his bill of particulars show that the bollard was plainly visible, with reflectors affixed, and located at a point where the bicycle path intersected with a road for vehicular traffic in order to prevent motor vehicles from accessing path. Under the circumstances, there are no triable issues as t) the existence of a dangerous condition ( see DeJesus v. City of New York, 29 AD3d 401).


Summaries of

Puma v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 2007
36 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Puma v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL PUMA, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 23, 2007

Citations

36 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 399
828 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

Roberts v. City of N.Y.

The photograph attached to the complaint as "Exhibit A," establishes that the bollards were "plainly…