Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aliza HALALI, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Decided: September 28, 1998

Before MANGANO, P.J., and SULLIVAN, FLORIO and McGINITY, JJ. Lester B. Herzog, Brooklyn, for appellants. Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath, Marta Soja, and Michael Reddy of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arniotes, J.), dated March 3, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their motion in limine for the production of certain subpoenaed materials.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the appellant's motion in limine is dismissed, as no appeal lies from such an order (see, Cotgreave v. Public Administrator of Imperial County [Cal.], 91 A.D.2d 600, 456 N.Y.S.2d 432);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the action against the City of New York on the ground that the City did not have prior written notice of the pavement defect complained of.   The most current “Big Apple Pothole & Sidewalk Protection Corp.” map of the subject location, which had been filed with the City 11 months before the injured plaintiff's fall, did not indicate any defect at the area in issue (see, Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 241, 638 N.Y.S.2d 593, 661 N.E.2d 1374;  Eidelman v. Hochauser, 242 A.D.2d 596, 662 N.Y.S.2d 559;  Sagevick v. Sanchez, 228 A.D.2d 488, 644 N.Y.S.2d 318).  Moreover, a prior notice of claim filed against the City in an unrelated suit involving a pedestrian's fall on the sidewalk in the subject area did not bring the particular defect of a raised sidewalk to the attention of the City (see, Weinreb v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 596, 597 N.Y.S.2d 432;  see also, Camacho v. City of New York, 218 A.D.2d 725, 630 N.Y.S.2d 557).

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.


Copied to clipboard