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.
David N. ADLER, et al., Respondents, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, Appellant, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Suffolk County Water Authority appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered July 26, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff David N. Adler was injured on August 23, 1998, at about 9:00 A.M., when the front wheel of his bicycle hit a depression in the roadway on Maple Avenue in the Town of Smithtown, County of Suffolk, causing him to fall. The alleged defect in the roadway was an open concentric region, approximately five inches deep, which surrounded a water valve box allegedly installed by the defendant Suffolk County Water Authority (hereinafter the SCWA).
The SCWA failed to satisfy its burden on its motion for summary judgment of establishing in the first instance its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). The SCWA did not submit any evidence with its moving papers to establish that it did not install the water valve box or that it did not create the alleged defect in the roadway by installing the water valve box in a negligent manner (see Atiles v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 543, 719 N.Y.S.2d 611; cf. Pierre v. City of New York, 273 A.D.2d 368, 709 N.Y.S.2d 206; Verdes v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 253 A.D.2d 552, 553, 677 N.Y.S.2d 168; Delano v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 231 A.D.2d 671, 647 N.Y.S.2d 849; Kobet v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 176 A.D.2d 785, 786, 575 N.Y.S.2d 114). The evidence submitted by the SCWA for the first time in its reply was properly disregarded by the Supreme Court (see Johnston v. Continental Broker-Dealer Corp., 287 A.D.2d 546, 731 N.Y.S.2d 666; Chavez v. Bancker Constr. Corp., 272 A.D.2d 429, 708 N.Y.S.2d 325).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the SCWA's motion for summary judgment.
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: June 02, 2003
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)