Madrid v. City of New York
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 399 N.Y.S.2d 205,369 N.E.2d 761,42 N.Y.2d 1039 |
| Parties | , 369 N.E.2d 761 Isabel MADRID, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1977 |
Page 205
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.
Bernard Meyerson, Brooklyn, and Elliott A. Roberts, P.C., New York City, for appellant.
W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Irving Cohen and L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The facts presented in this record, assessed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N.Y. 584, 586, 123 N.E.2d 79, 80), fail to reveal any evidence of notice, either actual or constructive, necessary to cast respondents in damages (e. g., Silva v. American Irving Sav. Bank, 31 A.D.2d 620, 295 N.Y.S.2d 366, aff'd 26 N.Y.2d 727, 309 N.Y.S.2d 33, 257 N.E.2d 283). A light drizzle on a damp October morning preceding the five-minute interval between the opening of Bellevue Hospital's out-patient clinic and plaintiff's fall on its terrazzo entrance created neither an inherently dangerous condition nor a sufficient opportunity to remedy a dangerous situation if there had been one. In the absence of any showing of notice to or lack of due care by respondents, the courts below properly concluded that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case. (See Powell v. Gates-Chili Cent. School Dist., 41 N.Y.2d 827, 829, 393 N.Y.S.2d 399, 361 N.E.2d 1047; cf. Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 N.Y. 107, 108-109, 186 N.E. 410.)
BREITEL, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeVeau v. US, 90-CV-1157.
......UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 90-CV-1157. United States District Court, N.D. New York. September 16, 1993.833 F. Supp. 140 Maloney, Schell & Eisenhauer (Michael W. ...Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241, 352 N.E.2d 868, 872, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 568 (1976); see Scurti v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 433, 434, 354 N.E.2d 794, 795, 387 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56 (1976); see also ... The defendant relies upon the cases of Madrid v. City of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 1039, 369 N.E.2d 761, 399 N.Y.S.2d 205 (1977), aff'g, 53 A.D.2d 517, ......
-
Harper v. U.S., CV-94-1197.
...of the accident." Spagnolia, 598 F.Supp. at 686 (citing Gimbel Bros., 262 N.Y. 107, 108-09, 186 N.E. 410, and Madrid v. City of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 1039, 399 N.Y.S.2d 205, 369 N.E.2d 761 Similarly, in Hess v. United States, 666 F.Supp. 666 (D.Del.1987), a 50 year old woman slipped and fell ......
-
Lewis v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority
...... S. Reid Kahn, New York City, of counsel (Kane, Kessler, Proujansky, Preiss & Nurnberg, P.C., New York City, attorneys), ... a sufficient opportunity, within the exercise of reasonable care, to remedy the situation (Madrid v. City of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 1039, 399 N.Y.S.2d 205, 369 N.E.2d 761; Harris v. Village of East ......
-
Holland v. US, 95 Civ. 1587 (JFK).
......No. 95 Civ. 1587 (JFK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 29, 1996.918 F. Supp. 88 The Robert D. Gould P.C. Law Firm, New York City ...at 686 (citing Miller v. Gimbel Brothers, 262 N.Y. 107, 108-09, 186 N.E. 410 (1933), and Madrid v. City of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 1039, 399 N.Y.S.2d 205, 369 N.E.2d 761 (1977)). In ......
-
Premises Liability
...of the defect or created the defective condition. See Madrid v. New York City, 53 App. Div. 2d 517, 383 N.Y.S.2d 621 (1976), aff’d 42 N.Y.2d 1039, 369 N.E.2d 761 (1977). This can often be difficult, especially where defects are not inherent in the present premises. For instance, a defect ma......