Corprew v. City of N.Y.,

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtMAZZARELLI
Citation2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03555,106 A.D.3d 524,965 N.Y.S.2d 108
Decision Date16 May 2013
PartiesJada CORPREW, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Chelmsford Contracting Corp., Defendant–Respondent.

106 A.D.3d 524
965 N.Y.S.2d 108
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03555

Jada CORPREW, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants,
Chelmsford Contracting Corp., Defendant–Respondent.

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

May 16, 2013.


[965 N.Y.S.2d 109]


Mirman, Markovits & Landau, P.C., New York (David Bloom of counsel), for appellant.

Carlucci & Giardina, LLP, New York (Don D. Carlucci of counsel), for respondent.


MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.

[106 A.D.3d 524]Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered October 24, 2012, which granted defendant Chelmsford Contracting Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims and any cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she stepped into a hole in the street next to the sidewalk curb, which had been installed by defendant Chelmsford one to four months earlier. Chelmsford had been retained by the City to install new pedestrian ramps in various locations, and had obtained a street opening permit for each site. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Chelmsford relied on the testimony of its project manager that the City had signed off on its work, and argued that it was therefore free of liability. However, in order to be entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, Chelmsford was required to establish prima facie that it did not cause or create the hole that allegedly caused plaintiff's fall ( see Garcia v. City of New York, 99 A.D.3d 491, 952 N.Y.S.2d 133 [1st Dept. 2012];Shechter v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 124, 125, 792 N.Y.S.2d 437 [1st Dept. 2005];Field v. City of New York, 302 A.D.2d 223, 753 N.Y.S.2d 719 [1st Dept. 2003] ). The City's acceptance of Chelmsford's work did not immunize it from liability, if it created the defect ( see Brown v. Welsbach Corp., 301 N.Y. 202, 93 N.E.2d 640 [1950] ). Nor was it entitled to summary judgment because the work was completed a month to four months before the accident ( see Hayes v. DeMicco Bros., Inc., 34 A.D.3d 641, 825 N.Y.S.2d 116 [2d Dept. 2006] ).

[106 A.D.3d 525]Defendant's failure to make such an initial showing requires the denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ). In any event, the motion court should not have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Tuchman v. Deam Props. (Us), LLC, Index No. 101056/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 25, 2014
    ...the leak due to Everest Realty's work, Everest Realty must demonstrate that its work did not cause the leak. Corprew v. City of New York, 106 A.D.3d 524 (1st Dep't 2013); Lopez v. New York Life Ins. Co., 90 A.D.3d 446, 447 (1st Dep't 2011); Espinoza v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 73 A.D.3......
  • Samayoa LLC v. Nelson, No. LT–901837/16.
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • May 24, 2017
    ...result in the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ( Corprew v. City of New York, 106 AD3d 524, 965 N.Y.S.2d 108 [1st Dept 2013] ; TrizecHahn, Inc. v. Timbil Chiller Maintenance Corp., 92 AD3d 409, 937 N.Y.S.2d 586 [1st Dept 2012] ; Santos v. New York C......
  • Concepcion v. Harlorn, LLC., Index No.: 303700/10
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • December 15, 2014
    ...work was performed to Harlorn's approval does not by itself absolve Izzy from liability in this matter (see Corprew v. City of New York, 106 A.D.3d 524 [1st Dept. 2013]). Here, unlike in Cullen v. Hicksville Free Public Library, 236 A.D.2d 357 (2nd Dept. 1997), the movant did not conclusive......
  • In re Mercedez Alicia Dynasty F.,
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 16, 2013
    ...Children's Village, Petitioner–Respondent.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.May 16, 2013. [965 N.Y.S.2d 108]Elisa Barnes, New York, for appellant.Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Tuchman v. Deam Props. (Us), LLC, Index No. 101056/2010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • April 25, 2014
    ...the leak due to Everest Realty's work, Everest Realty must demonstrate that its work did not cause the leak. Corprew v. City of New York, 106 A.D.3d 524 (1st Dep't 2013); Lopez v. New York Life Ins. Co., 90 A.D.3d 446, 447 (1st Dep't 2011); Espinoza v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 73 A.D.3......
  • Samayoa LLC v. Nelson, No. LT–901837/16.
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • May 24, 2017
    ...result in the denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ( Corprew v. City of New York, 106 AD3d 524, 965 N.Y.S.2d 108 [1st Dept 2013] ; TrizecHahn, Inc. v. Timbil Chiller Maintenance Corp., 92 AD3d 409, 937 N.Y.S.2d 586 [1st Dept 2012] ; Santos v. New York C......
  • Concepcion v. Harlorn, LLC., Index No.: 303700/10
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • December 15, 2014
    ...work was performed to Harlorn's approval does not by itself absolve Izzy from liability in this matter (see Corprew v. City of New York, 106 A.D.3d 524 [1st Dept. 2013]). Here, unlike in Cullen v. Hicksville Free Public Library, 236 A.D.2d 357 (2nd Dept. 1997), the movant did not conclusive......
  • In re Mercedez Alicia Dynasty F.,
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 16, 2013
    ...Children's Village, Petitioner–Respondent.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.May 16, 2013. [965 N.Y.S.2d 108]Elisa Barnes, New York, for appellant.Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT