Solomon v. City of New York

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore LAZER
Citation111 A.D.2d 802,490 N.Y.S.2d 547
PartiesCarolyn SOLOMON, etc., et al., Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.
Decision Date10 June 1985

Page 547

490 N.Y.S.2d 547
111 A.D.2d 802
Carolyn SOLOMON, etc., et al., Respondents,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
June 10, 1985.

Page 548

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Joan Handler and Miriam Skolnik, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Lipsig, Sullivan & Liapakis, P.C., New York City (Pamela Anagnos Liapakis and Cheryl Eisberg Moin, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

Before LAZER, J.P., and MANGANO, O'CONNOR and BROWN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant the City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 17, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff Carolyn Solomon the principal sum of $135,000 and plaintiff Arthur Solomon the principal sum of $7,500.

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and complaint dismissed.

On June 22, 1980, the infant plaintiff, Carolyn Solomon, was injured when she was struck by a bicyclist on the promenade of Manhattan Beach Park in Brooklyn, New York. Despite (1) the existence of posted signs informing the public of a park regulation prohibiting bicycle riding within the park and (2) the assignment of several policemen and park employees to patrol the promenade and enforce the prohibition, plaintiffs alleged in their complaint, that the defendant City of New York, inter alia, had failed to "exercise ordinary reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent bicycle riding on the Manhattan Beach Promenade Recreation Area".

In submitting the issue of defendant's liability to the jury as a question of fact, the court charged the jury as follows:

"The City of New York had the duty to provide general supervision to protect persons such as the plaintiff from foreseeable dangers while using its park facility. Thus, the City of New York was under a duty to exercise reasonable care and reasonable supervision.

* * *

* * *

"Thus, it is for you, the jury to say whether under all the circumstances disclosed by the evidence that the defendant, City of New York, should have appreciated the danger of the activity in question and whether the City provided enough general supervision to prevent the conducting of bicycle riding".

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant's motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law was denied.

In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Solomon by Solomon v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 1985
    ...(Miriam Skolnik, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division, 111 A.D.2d 802, 490 N.Y.S.2d 547, should be affirmed, with To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the de......
1 cases
  • Solomon by Solomon v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 1985
    ...(Miriam Skolnik, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division, 111 A.D.2d 802, 490 N.Y.S.2d 547, should be affirmed, with To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the de......

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