| Brown v City of New York |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08893 [90 AD3d 591] |
| December 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Brenda Brown, Respondent, v City of New York,Appellant, and Soo Gil Cho et al., Respondents . |
—[*1]
Avanzino & Moreno, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Angelicque Moreno and Oliver R. Tobias ofcounsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New Yorkappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sherman, J.), dated February 25,2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all crossclaims insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the defendant City of New York tothe plaintiff.
On its motion for summary judgment in this action to recover damages for personal injuries,the defendant City of New York failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. The City contended,inter alia, that the Big Apple Map for the area where the plaintiff fell did not provide it with priorwritten notice of the alleged defect that caused the plaintiff to fall.
Where, as here, "there are 'factual disputes regarding the precise location of the defect thatallegedly caused a plaintiff's fall, and whether the alleged defect is designated on the map, thequestion should be resolved by the jury' " (Bradley v City of New York, 38 AD3d 581, 582 [2007], quoting Cassuto v City of New York, 23 AD3d423, 424 [2005]; see Vertsberger vCity of New York, 34 AD3d 453, 455-456 [2006]; Almadotter v City of New York, 15 AD3d 426, 427 [2005];Quinn v City of New York, 305 AD2d 570, 571 [2003]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the City's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contention. Rivera,J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.