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.
Ruth M. KOVITS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAVINGS BANK OF UTICA, Defendant, and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.)
Plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall accident on a cracked sidewalk around a damaged utility access manhole cover at the southwest corner of Blandina and Union Streets in the City of Utica. Defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk) owns the underground pull box and wires at the corner where the accident occurred. Supreme Court granted the motion of Niagara Mowhawk for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claim against it.
We agree with plaintiff's contention that Niagara Mohawk failed to meet its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718; Romano v. County of Monroe, 149 A.D.2d 952, 540 N.Y.S.2d 83). Niagara Mohawk's submissions established that the damage to the sidewalk was caused by the collapse of the underground pull box. Moreover, Niagara Mohawk failed to establish that it did not create the defect in the sidewalk by installing the pull box in a negligent manner, causing it to collapse (see Adler v. Suffolk County Water Auth., 306 A.D.2d 229, 230, 760 N.Y.S.2d 523). Consequently, we reverse the order, deny the motion and reinstate the amended complaint against Niagara Mohawk.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law with costs, the motion is denied and the amended complaint against defendant Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is reinstated.
MEMORANDUM:
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: October 01, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)