| Arcabascio v City of New York |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00313 [91 AD3d 684] |
| Jnury 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Francesca Arcabascio et al., Appellants, v City of NewYork, Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry Sonnenshein and DaraOlds of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated September 8, 2010, which grantedthat branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Francesca Arcabascio (hereinafter Arcabascio) allegedly tripped and fell over adefective section of the boardwalk of South Beach in Staten Island on July 9, 2006. The areawhere she fell was approximately 16 feet away from a light pole numbered 93. Arcabascio andher husband, suing derivatively, commenced this action against the City of New York to recoverdamages for Arcabascio's alleged personal injuries and on her husband's derivative claim.
The City moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis thatsection 7-201 (c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York barred this action becausethere was no prior written notice of the alleged defective condition. The Supreme Court grantedthat branch of the motion. The plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.
In response to the City establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law(see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c]), the plaintiffs failed to raise atriable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the City's intake records concerninguneven boards on the boardwalk and work orders noting that there were loose or broken boardsin need of repair between light poles numbered 80 through 105 did not raise a triable issue of factas to whether the City was aware of the alleged defective condition which caused Arcabascio tofall (see Yarshevitz v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 737, 737 [1997]; Jones vTown of Brookhaven, 227 AD2d 530, 530 [1996]; Michela v County of Nassau, 176AD2d 707, 708 [1991]; Ferris v County of Suffolk, 174 AD2d 70, 76 [1992];O'Rourke v Town of Smithtown, 129 AD2d 570, 571 [1987]). The evidence wasuncontroverted that the boardwalk is 1.8 miles long and that the light poles were locatedapproximately 115 feet apart from one another. Moreover, the June 14, 2006, work order notedthat all defective areas on the boardwalk in need of repair had been painted yellow by the City,and Arcabascio's husband [*2]confirmed in an affidavit that thearea where the plaintiff fell was not so marked.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the City's motion which wasfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Angiolillo, J.P., Lott, Austin and Cohen, JJ.,concur.