Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Thelma PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.), entered on or about October 9, 2002, which granted the motion and cross motion of defendants 1749 Associates and the City of New York, respectively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying defendant City's cross motion for summary judgment, reinstating the complaint against said defendant and remanding for further proceedings consistent herewith; and granting plaintiff's cross motion to the extent of deeming the complaint amended to assert the date the City received the Big Apple Pothole map, to wit, August 26, 1994, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
It is well settled that Big Apple Pothole maps filed with the New York City Department of Transportation serve as prior written notice to the City of the indicated defective conditions (see Weinreb v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 596, 598, 597 N.Y.S.2d 432). Plaintiff precisely identified the location of her fall (adjacent to a manhole) and its cause (missing bricks). However, from the testimony concerning the interpretation of the map's legend and scale, it cannot be determined, as a matter of law, that the map depicts the defective condition and, therefore, whether it constitutes sufficient prior written notice of the hazard (see David v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 419, 420, 700 N.Y.S.2d 235). In any event, the presence of a manhole cover does not establish a special use so as to obviate notice (see ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v. Village of Ossining, 257 A.D.2d 606, 606-607, 684 N.Y.S.2d 258). Likewise, even if the location of plaintiff's fall can be said to abut defendant 1749 Associates' property, the use of brick rather than cement to construct the sidewalk is insufficient to establish a special use on its part. No evidence was offered that the bricks were installed at the property owner's direction in contemplation of any use other than by the general public (see Thomas v. Triangle Realty, 255 A.D.2d 153, 154, 679 N.Y.S.2d 394).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 06, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)