Di Sanza v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Madonia v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Lansen v. SL Green Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Lansen v. SL Green Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Decker v. Schildt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Decker v. Schildt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Loughren v. County of Ulster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Roimesher v. Colgate Scaffolding & Equipment Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Champagne v. Peck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Azzaro v. Super 8 Motels, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. We agree with the majority at the Appellate Division that, under the particular circumstances of this case, defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York’s evidentiary submissions were sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the one-inch bulge in the sidewalk grating. We further conclude that plaintiffs introduction of the postaccident photographs, which were not probative of the duration of the bulge, and the conclusory affidavit from his expert were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Batton v Elghanayan, 43 NY2d 898, 900 [1978] [photographs are not always sufficient to prove constructive notice]; see also Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544-545 [2002]; Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 451-452 [1997] [conclusory expert affidavit, devoid of evidentiary foundation, insufficient to defeat summary judgment]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.