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.
VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STD FIBRE WORKS, LTD, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Count, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, J.), entered on or about April 8, 2009, which, upon renewal, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant installed underground cables in the subject area beginning in April 2003 and ending in June 2003. In connection with this work, it applied for and received permission to work in the manholes in the area. Some eight months later, following a cable outage, plaintiff entered one of the manholes and discovered damage to one of its cable boxes. According to plaintiff, defendant was the responsible party.
Summary judgment was properly granted as plaintiff failed to offer any evidence beyond mere speculation that defendant's employees damaged the subject cable box. Testimony from plaintiff's employee established that companies other than defendant, as well as the New York City Fire Department, had keys to the manholes and therefore access to them without plaintiff's supervision, that employees from another company had entered the manhole on two occasions in April 2003, and that despite the fact that an inspector from plaintiff or its subsidiary was present when the work was performed by defendant, no inspector noticed any damage to the cable box prior to the outage in February 2004 (see e.g. Bernstein v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 1020, 1021-1022, 517 N.Y.S.2d 908, 511 N.E.2d 52 [1987] [where an accident may be caused by several possibilities, and where one or more cannot be traced back to the defendant, the plaintiff may not recover without sufficient proof that the defendant was liable] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions, including that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to renew, and find them unavailing.
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: December 17, 2009
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)