| Nieves v City of New York |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06342 [87 AD3d 684] |
| August 23, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John Nieves, Jr., Appellant, v City of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow,Margaret G. King, and David Charles Cooperstein of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated June 10, 2010, which granted that branchof the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict on theissue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant, City of NewYork, which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liabilityand for judgment as a matter of law. It is not disputed that the City did not receive prior writtennotice of the alleged defective condition in the roadway (see Administrative Code of Cityof NY § 7-201 [c] [2]) and, thus, the plaintiff sought to establish the City's liability underthe affirmative negligence exception to that rule for work performed by the City whichimmediately results in the existence of the dangerous condition (see Yarborough v City of New York,10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; Oboler vCity of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889-890 [2007]; Richards v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr., 80 AD3d 594,594-595 [2011]). However, the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish when theCity's alleged repair work was undertaken, and the plaintiff did not provide any evidence tendingto show that the alleged repair work immediately resulted in a dangerous condition. Accordingly,there was no "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly leadrational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented attrial" (Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; see Szczerbiak vPilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 48-49[1994]). Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 27Misc 3d 1237(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51083(U).]