Pen v City of New York
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Municipal personal injury liability involving a trip-and-fall on a boardwalk and whether the City established lack of prior written notice of the alleged defect.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the City's contention that it had not received prior written notice of the defective condition.
The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment to the City and denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The City failed to establish, as a prima facie matter, that it did not receive prior written notice under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2) [limits the City's duty of care over municipal streets and sidewalks by imposing liability only for defects or hazardous conditions of which its officials have been actually notified at a specified location]. The City's proof also failed to show that any repairs in the area had been completed before the accident. Because the City did not meet its initial burden, the motion should have been denied regardless of the adequacy of the plaintiff's opposition.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that on March 11, 2016, he tripped and fell on a defective condition on the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Brooklyn, between Brighton 1st Place and Brighton 2nd Street. In his notice of claim, he identified the accident location as the east end of the boardwalk opposite the Brighton Playground, near the center of the boardwalk next to boards running parallel between the beach side and the playground side. He then sued the City of New York to recover damages for personal injuries.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, accepting the City's argument that there was no prior written notice of the defect.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and denied the City's motion. The court held that the City's submissions, including affirmations from a Department of Parks and Recreation record searcher and deposition testimony from a Parks supervisor, did not sufficiently establish that the City lacked prior written notice of the specific defect or, if notice existed, that any remedial work had been completed before the accident. The court also noted that a boardwalk is included within the term sidewalk under Administrative Code § 7-201(c)(1)(b) [provides that the term sidewalk includes a boardwalk].
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a municipality seeking summary judgment in a sidewalk or boardwalk defect case must affirmatively prove the absence of prior written notice at the specified location, or otherwise establish that repairs were completed before the accident. General record-search evidence or incomplete testimony will not suffice. It also confirms that New York City's prior written notice rule for sidewalks applies to boardwalks.
In New York City boardwalk defect cases, the City bears a strict prima facie burden on summary judgment to prove no prior written notice or completed repair before the accident; if it fails to do so, dismissal is improper even if the plaintiff's opposition is weak.