Caturano v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Caturano v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ivri (2×)
Bronx Criminal Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
LEWIS, J.C.C Footnotes Footnote 1: Defense counsel's hearsay objection was misplaced, as hearsay evidence is permissible in suppression hearings (CPL § 710.30[1][b]; People v. Terry , 224 AD2d 202, 203 [1st Dept. 1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Clark
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · confidence medium
Were we to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we would conclude that the testimony of the officer who conducted the procedure is sufficient to establish that there was a prior relationship between the witness and defendant (see, People v Terry, supra, at 203).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lopez v. Town Fair Supermarket, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Liability may be imposed upon landowners whose property abuts a public sidewalk where the abutting landowner affirmatively caused or created the defect in the sidewalk (see, Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 453; see also, Caturano v City of New York, 224 AD2d 202 ; Forelli v Rugino, 139 AD2d 489 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nicholas Caturano
v.
City of New York, and 10-12 Cooper Square, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 6, 1996.
224 A.D.2d 202
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about August 4, 1995, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and defendant-respondent’s cross claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly found issues of fact precluding summary judgment in this action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a sidewalk defect, including whether defendants-respondents, the abutting property owner and its managing agent, while engaged in a nearby demolition project employing heavy machinery and equipment damaged the sidewalk by traversing it with their machinery and equipment, left it strewn with debris, or otherwise created the unsafe conditions that caused plaintiff’s injuries (see, Forelli v Rugino, 139 AD2d 489). We note such facts are peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge and control and have yet to be fully probed in disclosure (see, Terranova v Emil, 20 NY2d 493, 497). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.