Shvartsberg v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rubina v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Jordan v. Eureka Christian Fellowship, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Epps v. Bibicoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Weinberg v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Weinberg v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Gallo v. Health Port, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Garcia v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Morelli v. Edison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Choice v. Gill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Jones v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Cendales v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Selby v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- D'Andrea v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Robertson v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Burr v. Town of Hempstead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated May 5, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendant Verizon’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendant Verizon.
The defendant Verizon established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that neither its employees nor its contractors created the alleged hazardous condition in the roadway which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall (see Palone v City of New York, 5 AD3d 750, 751 [2004]; Skates v City of New York, 304 AD2d 820 [2003]; Maloney v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 290 AD2d 540 [2002]; McDermott v South Farmingdale Water Dist., 167 AD2d 517 [1990]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff and the defendant City of New York failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).
As Verizon correctly contends, the affidavits of plaintiff’s daughters could not be considered in determining the motion. In response to discovery demands and a preliminary conference order, the plaintiff stated that she knew of no notice witnesses and subsequently filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness, certifying that discovery had been completed (see Sandstedt v Flynn’s Enters., 305 AD2d 395 [2003]; Lau Lee Chan v Mikhalov, 279 AD2d 456 [2001]; Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 262 AD2d 470 [1999]; Robinson v New York City Hous. Auth., 183 AD2d 434 [1992]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Verizon’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.