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
Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity
PEOPLE WERE UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS THE RESULT OF DEFENDANT’S THREATS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE BANK’S STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
REMOVING PORTABLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATED UPON EXPEDITED REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT CONVICTION MERGED WITH OFFENSES OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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...