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.
Donaldo TORRENEGRA, respondent, et al., plaintiff, v. Juan B. GARCIA, defendant, City of New York, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Tracy Catapano–Fox, J.), entered October 4, 2023. The order denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On November 8, 2017, the plaintiff Donaldo Torrenegra (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) allegedly was injured when he was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Juan B. Garcia while crossing an intersection in Queens. The injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced separate actions against Garcia and the defendant City of New York, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries. The two actions were subsequently consolidated. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the accident was caused by malfunctioning traffic control devices at the intersection. The City moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. In an order entered October 4, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the City's motion. The City appeals.
A municipality owes a nondelegable duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition (see Thompson v. City of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 682, 684; Tiannuan Chen v. Jones, 231 AD3d 893, 895). Here, the City made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the subject intersection was maintained in a reasonably safe condition and that the City neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition at the intersection (see Regan v. City of New York, 127 AD3d 843, 844; Alvarez v. Hee Youn Koo, 16 AD3d 442; see also Kirton v. City of New York, 234 AD3d 439, 440). However, under the circumstances of this case, in opposition, the injured plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact through the submission of repair orders for the subject intersection noting the same dangerous condition alleged to have caused the accident (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 838). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
The City's remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.
CHAMBERS, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
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.
Docket No: 2024-00729
Decided: September 17, 2025
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)