PUMA v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2007)

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

Michael PUMA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: January 23, 2007

TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, NARDELLI, CATTERSON, MALONE, JJ.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Choi-Hausman of counsel), for appellant. Marie R. Hodukavich, Peekskill, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered September 8, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a path maintained by defendant for that purpose when he struck a three-foot-tall steel bollard in the middle of the path. Photographs submitted by plaintiff with his bill of particulars show that the bollard was plainly visible, with reflectors affixed, and located at a point where the bicycle path intersected with a road for vehicular traffic in order to prevent motor vehicles from accessing the path. Under the circumstances, there are no triable issues as to the existence of a dangerous condition (see DeJesus v. City of New York, 29 A.D.3d 401, 815 N.Y.S.2d 502 [2006] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network