You are here: / / NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE...
,

NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the NYC Transit Authority in this slip and fall case. The Transit Authority is responsible for the maintenance of manhole covers in city sidewalks. The evidence raised a question of fact whether the defect in the sidewalk was within the area around the manhole for which the Transit Authority is responsible:

​

Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2-07(b) provides that owners of covers or gratings on a street, which includes the sidewalk, are responsible for monitoring the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending 12 inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware, and for ensuring that the hardware is flush with the surrounding surface … . In support of its motion, the Transit Authority submitted, among other things, the plaintiff’s notice of claim with photographs depicting the accident location, her testimony at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, and her deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the alleged defective portion of the sidewalk was in close proximity to a manhole cover. Regardless of whether the Transit Authority owned the subject sidewalk, it failed to establish the absence of any triable issues of fact as to whether it owned the subject manhole cover or whether the plaintiff fell within the manhole cover owner’s zone of responsibility … . Nyack v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06445, Second Dept 9-13-17

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/MANHOLE COVERS (SLIP AND FALL, NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AREA AROUND MANHOLE COVERS IN CITY SIDEWALKS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING OR TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE “ABANDONMENT” EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS DESCRIBED IN AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF; BUT THE AFFIANT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THOSE RECORDS IN EVIDENCE; JUDGMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
“Intrinsic” Versus “Extrinsic” Fraud as the Basis of a Motion to Open a Default Judgment/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect
Out-of-Court Statement Leading to Discovery of the Weapon Did Not Violate Defendant’s Right of Confrontation Because There Was No “Direct Implication” the Statement Involved the Defendant’s Possession of the Weapon
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO REMEDY DEFECTS IN THE COMPLAINT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ORAL CONTRACT CALLED FOR THE MATURATION OF A LOAN AFTER 15 YEARS, THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT WITHIN A YEAR.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT... SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SERVICE OF A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST...