Justice v. City of New York

Citation8 A.D.3d 237,2004 NY Slip Op 04293,777 N.Y.S.2d 664
Decision Date01 June 2004
Docket Number2003-09652.
PartiesROBERT JUSTICE et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York.

The plaintiff Robert Justice (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured on June 29, 1992, when a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Orville Germain collided with the injured plaintiff's vehicle at the intersection of Flatlands Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue in Brooklyn. The traffic signal at that intersection was not functioning properly at the time of the accident.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the defendant City of New York (hereinafter the City) to file its cross motion for summary judgment beyond the time limit provided by CPLR 3212 (a) (see Boehme v A.P.P.L.E., A Program Planned for Life Enrichment, 298 AD2d 540 [2002]; Goodman v Gudi, 264 AD2d 758 [1999]).

However, the Supreme Court improperly granted the City's cross motion for summary judgment, since the City failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it did not have constructive notice of the malfunctioning traffic signal before the accident (see Prager v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 74 AD2d 844 [1980], affd 53 NY2d 854 [1981]). Furthermore, the City failed to establish that the intervening acts of the injured plaintiff and Germain were the superseding cause of the accident (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]; Pomeroy v Buccina, 289 AD2d 944 [2001]).

Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Fisher, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Amigon v. Maxwin USA, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 32035(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/14/2008), 0007858/2006
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 2008
    ...Peteroy, 39 A.D.3d 590, 592 (2nd Dept. 2007); see, Ellman v. Village of Rhinebeck, 41 A.D.3d 635 (2nd Dept. 2007); Justice v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 237 (2nd Dept. 2004); Kaufman v. Kehler, 5 A.D.3d 564 (2nd Dept. 2004); Boehme v. A.P.P.L.E., 298 A.D.2d 540 (2nd Dept. 2002); compare, Bi......
  • Tyberg v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 26 Junio 2019
    ...a matter of law, that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries (see Justice v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 237, 238, 777 N.Y.S.2d 664 ; see generally Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666 ). Since the City......
  • Rosado v. City of New Rochelle
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 Agosto 2021
    ...was no proximate causal connection between its alleged negligence and the injured plaintiff's injuries (see Justice v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 237, 238, 777 N.Y.S.2d 664 ; see generally Derdiarian v. Felix Contr. Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166, 414 N.E.2d 666 ). Since the City fa......
  • Rosado v. City of New Rochelle
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 11 Agosto 2021
    ...that there was no proximate causal connection between its alleged negligence and the injured plaintiff's injuries (see Justice v City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 237, 238; see generally Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., N.Y.2d 308). Since the City failed to satisfy its prima facie burden, its moti......
  • 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