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.
Maya JONES, plaintiff-respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., defendants-respondents, Brooklyn Union Gas, Inc., appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas, Inc., now known as Keyspan Energy Delivery New York, appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated May 10, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas, Inc., now known as Keyspan Energy Delivery New York, is granted.
The plaintiff, Maya Jones, alleged that she tripped and fell when her foot became caught in a hole in the sidewalk surrounding a gas valve belonging to the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas, Inc., now known as Keyspan Energy Delivery New York (hereinafter Brooklyn Union). In support of its motion for summary judgment, Brooklyn Union produced evidence that it had not performed any work in the area during the two years preceding the accident. In opposition to Brooklyn Union's establishment, prima facie, of its entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Brooklyn Union created the defect by negligently performing repairs or that the accident location was constructed in a special manner for its benefit (see Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470; Shvartsberg v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d 578, 579, 798 N.Y.S.2d 85). The mere speculation that Brooklyn Union used the gas valve where the plaintiff fell to turn off the gas to a nearby building for the construction company doing work on the building did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the evidence presented by Brooklyn Union that it performed no work on the sidewalk (see Cendales v. City of New York, 25 A.D.3d 579, 581, 807 N.Y.S.2d 414; Child v. Suffolk County Water Auth., 283 A.D.2d 537, 537-538, 725 N.Y.S.2d 213).
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 20, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)