Almadotter v. City of New York, 15 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Almadotter v. City of New York, 15 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · (e)xtended section of obstructions protruding from (the) sidewalk at p. 427 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …there are factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiffs fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the site inspection report, the question should be resolved by a jury at p. 427 ≈ altered
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Llanos v. Stark (nyappdiv, 2017-06-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Llanos v. Stark
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Any dispute as to the precise location of the noticed pothole is a question of fact for the jury (see Donnellan v City of New York, 112 AD3d 780, 781 [2013]; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]; Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Foley v. City of New York (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Notably, the cases upon which Reyes relied also involved extended defects ( see Almadotter v City of New York , 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2d Dept 2005] ["(e)xtended section of obstructions protruding from (the) sidewalk"] [internal quotation marks omitted]) or multiple defects at the location of the accident all within close proximity to each other ( see Johnson v City of New York , 280 AD2d 271 [1st Dept 2001]) [FN2] .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donnellan v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
To the extent that “ ‘there are factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiffs fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the [site inspection report], the question should be resolved by a jury’ ” (Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005], quoting Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donnellan v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
To the extent that “ ‘there are factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiffs fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the [site inspection report], the question should be resolved by a jury’ ” (Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005], quoting Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mora v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Whether or not the sidewalk defect which plaintiff claims caused her to fall was depicted on the Big Apple map presents an issue of fact for the jury (see Brown v City of New York, 90 AD3d 591, 591 [2011]; Bradley v City of New York, 38 AD3d at 582 ; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]; Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]; cf. Weinreb v City of New York, 193 AD2d 596, 598 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mora v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Whether or not the sidewalk defect which plaintiff claims caused her to fall was depicted on the Big Apple map presents an issue of fact for the jury (see Brown v City of New York, 90 AD3d 591, 591 [2011]; Bradley v City of New York, 38 AD3d at 582 ; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]; Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]; cf. Weinreb v City of New York, 193 AD2d 596, 598 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Where, as here, “there are ‘factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiffs fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury’ ” (Bradley v City of New York, 38 AD3d 581, 582 [2007], quoting Cassuto v City of New York, 23 AD3d 423, 424 [2005]; see Vertsberger v City of New York, 34 AD3d 453, 455-456 [2006]; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]; Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lai-Hor Ng Yiu v. Crevatas
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2011 · confidence medium
As Anne Crevatas is an owner, and occupied part of the premises, it was “in part, owner occupied.” Such a broad reading of the exception is warranted given that the imposition of liability on the abutting owners was enacted in derogation of the common law (see Vucetovic, 10 NY3d at 521 ; Coogan, 73 AD3d at 614 [literal and narrow interpretations that would thwart the statutory purpose should be avoided]; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2d Dept 2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sondervan v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Disputes as to whether the location and nature of the defect are sufficiently portrayed so as to bring the condition to the municipality’s attention involve factual questions appropriately resolved at trial (see Reyes v City of New York, 63 AD3d 615, 615 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 710 [2009]; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reyes v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Although “[t]he awareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident” (Roldan v City of New York, 36 AD3d 484 [2007]), where there are factual issues as to the precise location of the defect that caused a plaintiffs fall and whether the defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury (see Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]; Johnson v City of New York, 280 AD2d 271, 272 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Delaney v. Town of Islip
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Accordingly, since prior notice laws are in derogation of common law and must be strictly construed, notice will be deemed sufficient if it brings the particular condition which allegedly caused the subject accident to the attention of the authorities designated to receive notice (see Alexander v City of New York, 59 AD3d 650 [2009]; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]; Gorman v Town of Huntington, 12 NY3d 275 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander v. City of New York (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Therefore, since the prior notice law is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed against the City, a notice is sufficient if it brought the particular condition at issue to the attention of the authorities” (Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D'Onofrio v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The issue of whether the filed notice constituted proper prior written notice to the City of the defective condition was properly given to the jury to decide (see Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradley v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Although maps prepared by Big Apple and filed with the Department of Transportation may serve as prior written notice of the defects which they depict (see Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241, 243 [1995]), where there are “factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiffs fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury” (Cassuto v City of New York, 23 AD3d 423 [2005]; see Vertsberger v City of New York, 34 AD3d 453 [2006]; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reid v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
In any event, the Big Apple Pothole map filed with the City’s Department of Transportation depicts an extended section of raised or uneven sidewalk in the area where the plaintiff fell, and the factual dispute referable to whether the subject defect is designated on the map is a question for a jury (see Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wong v. R.A. Gottlieb, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
There are issues of fact as to whether the City of New York received sufficient prior written notice (see Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]) and, if not, whether the City created the condition (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Kiernan v Thompson, 73 NY2d 840, 841 [1988]; Cabrera v City of New York, 21 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2005]; Hinkley v Village of Ballston Spa, 306 AD2d 612 [2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vertsberger v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
“The Administrative Code of the City of New York does not set forth any requirements for the specificity of the notice” (Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wania Almadotter
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 14, 2005.
15 A.D.3d 426
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1615
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated September 15, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

On March 7, 2000, the plaintiff tripped and fell on an alleg[*427] edly defective sidewalk in front of 1000 Washington Avenue in Brooklyn. On the relevant Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Corporation map (hereinafter the Big Apple Pothole map) (see Weinreb v City of New York, 193 AD2d 596, 597 [1993]), the subject site was described as an “[ejxtended section of obstructions protruding from [the] sidewalk.” The plaintiff alleged that the sidewalk was “cracked, uneven, irregular, unlevel, raised, dangerous and/or [in a] hazardous condition.” The photographic evidence in the record depicts a stretch of concrete sidewalk with contiguous slabs that are of different heights.

The defendant City of New York moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not receive any prior written notice of the defective condition alleged by the plaintiff. As to the Big Apple Pothole map, relying on Camacho v City of New York (218 AD2d 725 [1995]), the City argued that the map provided notice of a different condition and was insufficient to apprise the City of the actual nature of the defect; thus, the City contended that the complaint must be dismissed. The Supreme Court granted the motion. We reverse.

Big Apple Pothole maps filed with the New York City Department of Transportation serve as prior written notice to the City of the defective conditions indicated on the maps. The Administrative Code of the City of New York does not set forth any requirements for the specificity of the notice. Therefore, since the prior notice law is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed against the City, a notice is sufficient if it brought the particular condition at issue to the attention of the authorities (see Weinreb v City of New York, supra at 598). “Where there are factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect that allegedly caused a plaintiffs fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by a jury” (Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]). Contrary to the City’s contentions, whether the “cracked, uneven, irregular, unlevel, raised, dangerous and/or hazardous condition” (emphasis supplied) of the sidewalk in front of 1000 Washington Avenue is the same condition as the “extended section of obstructions protruding from [the] sidewalk” noticed on the Big Apple Pothole map is a question of fact which should be resolved by a jury (see Quinn v City of New York, supra; Vasquez v City of New York, 298 AD2d 187 [2002]; Patane v City of New York, 284 AD2d 513 [2001]). Camacho v City of New York (supra), upon which the City relies, is clearly distinguishable. There, the one-foot-deep hole measuring three by four feet in width clearly was not the raised sidewalk noticed[*428] on the Big Apple Pothole map. While summary judgment may have been appropriate therein, it is not appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the City’s motion should have been denied. H. Miller, J.P, Cozier, S. Miller and Fisher, JJ., concur.