Esponda v. Ramos-Ciprian

• Decision Date: 07 January 2020
• Docket Number: Index 305186/12,10728,10728A
• Citation: Esponda v. Ramos-Ciprian, 179 A.D.3d 424, 116 N.Y.S.3d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
• Parties: Mirta ESPONDA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ana RAMOS–CIPRIAN, Defendant, The City of New York, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

179 A.D.3d 424

116 N.Y.S.3d 239

Mirta ESPONDA, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Ana RAMOS–CIPRIAN, Defendant,The City of New York, Defendant–Appellant.

10728

10728A

Index 305186/12

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 7, 2020

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for appellant.

The Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, New York (Stacey Haskel of counsel), for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Oing, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about April 20, 2018, which granted plaintiff's motion for clarification and thereupon vacated a prior order, entered July 16, 2014, to the extent it had granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint dismissed as to the City. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 25, 2018, which denied the City's motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper and as academic. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against the City.

In 2014, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment against defendant Ana Ramos–Ciprian, the owner of the property abutting the allegedly defective sidewalk where she fell, and the City cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it. The City agreed with plaintiff that Ramos–Ciprian was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk, and also argued that it could not be liable based on evidence establishing that it did not have prior written notice of the defect, a condition precedent to municipal liability, and did not create the defect. Plaintiff did not oppose the City's motion.

In the order entered July 16, 2014, the motion court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Ramos–Ciprian, and also granted the City's cross motion for summary judgment, finding that its responsibility for sidewalk maintenance was shifted to Ramos–Ciprian. Ramos–Ciprian appealed, and this Court issued an order modifying the July 2014 order to the extent of denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Ramos–Ciprian, finding issues of fact as to whether she could rely on the exemption applicable for residential owners ( 133 A.D.3d 547, 19 N.Y.S.3d 419 [1st Dept. 2015] ).

Thereafter, plaintiff moved for "clarification" before the motion court, contending that her claims against the City must be reinstated based on this Court's order. The motion court granted plaintiff's motion, concluding that since the legal reasoning for releasing the City in this case was deemed erroneous, it logically flowed that the grant of the City's cross motion was likewise erroneous. This appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that plaintiff's motion for...