Bchakjan v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 17 November 2022
• Docket Number: 16670,Index No. 158738/17,Case No. 2021–02770
• Citation: Bchakjan v. City of N.Y., 210 A.D.3d 519, 179 N.Y.S.3d 196 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
• Parties: Anne BCHAKJAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent, Gateway Realty LLC et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

210 A.D.3d 519

179 N.Y.S.3d 196

Anne BCHAKJAN, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Respondent,Gateway Realty LLC et al., Defendants.

16670

Index No. 158738/17

Case No. 2021–02770

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Entered November 17, 2022

Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Lauren E. Bryant of counsel), for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for respondent.

Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered July 22, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant City of New York's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff's claim reinstated, the complaint deemed amended to allege that the City had prior written notice, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The City demonstrated prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) by showing that plaintiff had not pleaded that the City had prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect that caused plaintiff to trip and fall (see Kales v. City of New York, 169 A.D.3d 585, 585, 95 N.Y.S.3d 58 [1st Dept. 2019] ; see generally Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7–201[c][2]; Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 241, 243, 638 N.Y.S.2d 593, 661 N.E.2d 1374 [1995] ). In support of its summary judgment motion, the City submitted evidence, including the most recent Big Apple Map received by the City prior to plaintiff's accident, and argued that the Map did not depict the type of sidewalk defect that plaintiff testified caused her accident.

Based on all the evidence submitted, including the Big Apple Map and photographs of the sidewalk defect, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City had prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition (see Sanchez v. City of New York, 176 A.D.3d 490, 491, 107 N.Y.S.3d 855 [1st Dept. 2019] ). The City's contention that the Big Apple Map had been rendered inapplicable by subsequent sidewalk repairs is unavailing. Aside from the fact that this argument was improperly raised for the first time on reply, the City's submissions indicated that the defect remained unchanged. Further, the issue of whether the Big Apple Map was sufficiently close in time to provide prior written notice, and whether the area had remained unchanged, was a question for the jury (see Rosell v. City of Kingston, 92 A.D.3d 1123, 1124–1125, 939 N.Y.S.2d 153 [3d Dept. 2012] ).

The evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the City's motion may be considered to correct the deficiency in the pleadings regarding prior written notice (see Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970 [1976] ; Becker v. City of New York, 131 A.D.2d 413, 415, 516 N.Y.S.2d 225 [2d Dept. 1987] ). Because plaintiff previously...