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.
Compton Case, respondent, v. City of New York, et al., defendants, Verizon New York, Inc., appellant.
Submitted-February 8, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 18, 2010, as denied that branch of its motion which was 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 allegedly tripped and fell over a manhole cover, which was allegedly uneven with the street level, located on East 21st Street at its intersection with Church Avenue in Brooklyn.
The defendant Verizon New York, Inc. (hereinafter Verizon), established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the affidavit of its scheduling manager, Aaron Crawford, which demonstrated that there were no manhole covers belonging to Verizon located in the area where the plaintiff fell. Crawford asserted that the manhole cover located in the area of the plaintiff's fall did not belong to Verizon because it did not contain Verizon markings and it had a hole in the center (see DeSilva v. City of New York, 15 AD3d 252, 254). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether work performed by Verizon in the immediate area caused or contributed to the manhole cover being uneven with the street level (see Cendales v. City of New York, 25 AD3d 579, 581).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Verizon's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
COVELLO, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2010-02858 (Index No. 4294 /07)
Decided: March 08, 2011
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)