Garrison v. City of New York

Decision Date03 December 2002
Citation300 A.D.2d 14,751 N.Y.S.2d 436
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesRICHARD GARRISON, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

The City's untimely motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [a]) was properly entertained absent a showing of prejudice by plaintiffs and given indications that plaintiffs could not prove an essential element of their prima facie case (see Luciano v Apple Maintenance & Servs., 289 AD2d 90). Plaintiff could not show that the City had prior written notice of the alleged hole in the path, as required by Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201 (c). On the merits, the IAS court correctly held that the parks supervisor's preaccident submission of a general work order requesting resurfacing of the entire 100-mile run of bicycle pathways did not constitute notice of the particular defect that allegedly caused the infant plaintiff to fall off his bicycle. Nor did plaintiffs raise issues of fact as to whether the City created the hole or made special use of the bicycle path, such as might have avoided the need to show actual notice of the hole. According to plaintiffs' expert, the hole was caused by motor vehicles allowed on the paths to remove snow and collect garbage, although the paths were designed only for pedestrians and bicycles. The IAS court, noting the sparse and occasional nature of this vehicular use of the paths, and that the construction specifications cited by plaintiffs' expert pertain to highways, not pathways, properly rejected this opinion as speculative. Also properly rejected was plaintiffs' argument that such occasional vehicular use of the paths by the City, in furtherance of its maintenance obligations, constitutes a special use (cf. Kaminer v Dan's Supreme Supermarket/Key Food, 253 AD2d 657).

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kershaw v. Hosp. for Special Surgery
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 24 Diciembre 2013
    ...has been demonstrated, citing Burns v. Gonzalez, 307 A.D.2d 863, 763 N.Y.S.2d 603 [1st Dept. 2003], and Garrison v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 14, 751 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1st Dept. 2002], lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 510, 760 N.Y.S.2d 102, 790 N.E.2d 276 [2003]. The dissent would seemingly limit the rea......
  • STANLEY & SON, INC. v. WELLS FARGO ALARM SERVICES, INC.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 Diciembre 2002
    ... ... Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2002, unanimously affirmed for the ... ...

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