Etra v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Etra v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 32599(U) October 16, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 113588/2011 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY . ~ HON. KATIIRYN FREED PRESENT: JtlSTICE OF SUf ¢REivtE co r ., ~ ~ :J I i ¢ ti wr·;;11 .;~ L"",1 ------------'-'=-=;;..;:::..;~'4-.- ~.; i .·;;;J Index Number : 113588/2011 ETRA, DANIEL INDEX N O . - - - - COUNTY CLERK'S VS OFFIC~OTION DATE _ _ __ MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __ CITY OF NEW YORK Sequence Number : 001 DISMISS PART . c. A '- ~ :R . J i-· The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ , were read on this motion t o / f o r - - - - - - - - - - - - - Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits----------------- Replying A f f i d a v i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is I No(s)._ _ _ _ __ I No(s). - - - - 1Nols). - - - - - FILED OCT 2 3 2013 w ;:: COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE NEW YORK () en :::> ..., ~ c w D::'. n:: w w LI.. D::'. ¢ ¢ >- ~ - ...J z ...J :::> 0 u. en I- <( () w w D::'. g, w Cl ti) ~ z D::'. - - 0 w ...J (/) ...J <( (.) 0 LL. - w z ::c 0 l- s fr ::e --- D::'. Dated: /0- J 4,,../ J ,J.S.C. OCT 1 6 2Gl3 HON. KATIIRYN FREED JUSTICE OF S~\IBtiPOSITION 1. CHECK ONE: .................................................... ................. 0 CASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: GRANTED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:................................................ DENIED SETTLE ORDER 0DONOTPOST GRANTED IN PART 00THER SUBMIT ORDER 0 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: Part 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------)( DANIEL ETRA, Plaintiff, -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DECISION/ORDER Index No. 113588/2011 Seq. No. 001 FILED OCT 2 3 2013 Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------)( HON. KATHRYNE. FREED: COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE NEW YORK RECITATION, AS REQUIRED BY CPLR§2219 (a), OF THE PAPERS CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW OF THIS MOTION. PAPERS NOTICE OF MOTION AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED .................. . ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND AFFIDAVITS ANNEXED ........... . ANSWERING AFFIDAVITS ............................................................... . REPLYING AFFIDAVITS ................................................................... . EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. . OTHER.................................................................................................. . NUMBERED .. .... 1-2.(exhs. A,B,E-H) ......... 3 ( exh.A) .. ...... .4 .......... . UPON THE FOREGOING CITED PAPERS, THIS DECISION/ORDER ON THE MOTION IS AS FOLLOWS: Defendant the City of New York ("the City"), moves for an Order pursuant to CPLR§ 3211 (a)(7) or in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR§3212, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims. Plaintiff opposes. After a review of the papers presented, all relevant statutes and case law, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment. Factual and procedural background: Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained on May 26, 2011, when he tripped and fell in a pothole/depression adjacent to a manhole in the crosswalk at 9th Street and 5th Avenue in New York County. The subject manhole bore the letters WSNY, ("Water [* 3] Service of New York"). As a result, plaintiff suffered a comminuted foot fracture. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced the instant action via Summons and Complaint on December 5, 2011. Issue was joined via the City's Answer on or about December 22, 2011. On November 29, 2012, the City exchanged its Response to the Case Scheduling Order ( "CSO"), which included a two year search of the Department of Transportation ("DOT") records for the subject intersection of 5th A venue between West 9th Street and West 101h Street. The City asserts that said search revealed two permits, no inspections, no corrective action requests ("CARS"), no notices of violation, no maintenance and repair records, no gangsheets for roadway defects, no milling and resurfacing records, and only one complaint. On December 7, 2012, DOT records searcher, Abraham Lopez testified as to these search results. Additionally, in an affidavit annexed as Exh. G, DOT paralegal Sean Williams states that he personally conducted the search which yielded the aforementioned results. Positions of the parties: The City argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because it did not have prior written notice of the subject defect. It also argues that the defective condition comes under the purview of the prior written notice provisions of §7-20l(c)(2) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. It further argues that is it entitled to summary judgment because it did not cause or create the subject defect, and that plaintiff has failed to submit evidence in admissible form to show that said defect was the immediate result of an affirmative act of the City. Plaintiff argues that there is no prior written notice requirement for special uses of a roadway. He asserts that he does not dispute the requirement that prior written notice of roadway defects must be proven prior to any recovery from the City for roadway defects under ordinary circumstances. 2 [* 4] However, he argues that courts have consistently recognized two exceptions to this rule, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence and where a "special use" confers a special benefit upon the locality. Plaintiff argues that the special use exception imputes municipal liability despite lack of prior written notice when a structure in the street is constructed specifically to confer a special benefit on the locality rather than for public use. Plaintiff refers to and relies on various cases as support for his position. The City responds that the special use exception does not apply to a municipal manhole cover in the roadway, and that the Court cannot even consider this exception because it was not formally plead in plaintiffs Notice of Claim or Summons and Complaint. Therefore, it is deemed null and void. Conclusfons of law: "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must demonstrate that there are no material issues of fact in dispute, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" ( Dallas-Stephenson v. Waisman, 39 A.D.3d303, 306 [Pt Dept. 2007], citing Winegradv. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985] ). Once the proponent has proffered evidence establishing a prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to present evidence in admissible form raising a triable issue of material fact (see Zuckerman v. City ofNew York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 [1989]; People ex rel Spitzer v. Grasso, 50 A.D.3d 535 [1st Dept. 2008] ). "Mere conclusory assertions, devoid of evidentiary facts, are insufficient for this purpose, as is reliance upon surmise, conjecture or speculation" (Morgan v. New York Telephone, 220 A.D.2d 728 [2d Dept. 1985] ). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact, summary judgment must be denied ( Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223 (1978]; Grossman v. Amalgamated Rous. Corp., 298 A.D.2d 3 [* 5] 224 [Pt Dept. 2002] ). "A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it" (Gordon v. American Museum ofNatural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837 [1986]; see also Petersel v. Good Samaritan Hosp. of Suffern, NY., 99 A.D.3d 880, 881 [2d Dept. 2012];Willis v. Galileo Cortlandt, LLC, 106 A.D.3d 630 [2d Dept. 2013]; Branham v. Lowes Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 31 A.D.3d 319, 320 [l st Dept. 2006], affd 8 N.Y.3d 931 [2007] ). Only after the moving defendant has established this threshold, will the court consider the sufficiency of plaintiffs opposition ( see Perez v. Rodriguez, 25 A.D.3d 506 [1st Dept. 2006] ). The "special use" doctrine is a recognized exception to the prior written· notice requirement (see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 474 [1999] ). This doctrine essentially authorizes the imputation ofliability against any entity that installs an object onto the sidewalk or roadway, for injuries arising out of circumstances where the entity has been permitted to interfere with a street solely for private use and convenience, which is in no way connected with public use ( see Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204, 207 [1997]; Petty v. Dupont, 77 A.D.3d 466, 468 [Pt Dept. 2010]; Ausderan v. City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 562 [Pt Dept. 1995] ). It applies when, inter alia, a structure erected on public land causes an adjoining private property to derive a special benefit from that land (Petty v. Dupont, 77 A.D.3d at 468 ). The party benefitting from the special use is required to maintain the property so used in a reasonably safe condition to avoid injury to others Id; see also Ocasio v. City ofMiddletown, 148 A.D.2d 431 [2d Dept. 1989] ). 4 [* 6] A manhole cover has been deemed to be a feature constructed in the street for a special use, i.e., to provide access to underground equipment or mechanisms (id.; Hare v. City ofNew York, 182 A.D.2d 682; Posner v. New York City Transit Auth., 27 A.D.3d 542 [2d Dept. 2006]. Plaintiff specifically cites to Posner as support for its position. However, in Posner, plaintiff alleged violations of the Administrative Code of the City ofN.Y.§ 19-147, which requires the replacement of broken or slippery manhole covers at the direction of the Commissioner of DOT. That plaintiff also relied on the Department of Transportation Bureau ofHighways Rules & Regulations§ 2-33(h), which required that utilities, agencies, or other permitees maintain manhole covers and replace or repair broken or slippery manhole covers. However, in the case at bar, even assuming that the special use doctrine is applicable to the subject manhole, plaintiff has failed to proffer ahy proof of any special benefit conferred. upon the City by said manhole (see Oboler v. City ofNew York, 8 N.Y.3d 888 (2007] ). Indeed, unlike the plaintiff in Posner, he cites no statute or other legal concept which establishes any semblance of a causal link between the subject manhole and the City. This omission leaves the Court with no other option but to grant the City's motion for summary judgment. Therefore, in accordance with the forgoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant City's motion for summary judgment is hereby granted and the complaint and any cross claims are hereby severed and dismissed against it, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of said defendant; and it is further ORDERED that the Trial Support Office is directed to remove this case from the Part 5 inventory. Defendant shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and the Trial Support Office, 60 Centre Street, Room 158. Any compliance conferences currently scheduled are hereby cancelled; 5 [* 7] and it is further ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of the Court. ENTER: DATED: October 16, 2013 OCT 16 2013 on. Kathryn E. Freed HON. Ki~JN FREED JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT f\LED oc12i20\~ K'S Qff\CE coUN1~~~~oRK 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.