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
CO-OP DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE DISABLED COMPLAINANT BY REFUSING TO ALLOW HER TO KEEP A DOG IN HER APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
Appreciation of Value of Marital Residence Should Have Been Reduced by Cost of Improvements
FATHER’S ABILITY TO BRING FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS UNDERGOING TREATMENT OR COUNSELING (SECOND DEPT).
EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR EIGHT-YEAR-OLD WAS SUPPORTED; BUT THE DERIVATIVE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR THE FOUR-MONTH-OLD WAS NOT (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED.
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
A PROPER FOUNDATION WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOME BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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...