Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department reviewed the Supreme Court's denial of the City of New York's motion for summary judgment in a consolidated personal injury action stemming from a fatal pedestrian accident at an intersection with non-functioning street lights. The court determined that the City failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding whether it permitted a dangerous condition to persist, had actual or constructive notice of the outage, and whether the decedent experienced conscious pain and suffering. Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower court's order denying summary judgment on the negligence claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the City of New York is entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims arising from its alleged failure to maintain street lights
- Whether the City had actual or constructive notice of the street‑light outage and whether that condition was a proximate cause of the accident
Holdings
- The City is not entitled to summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether it maintained the intersection in a reasonably safe condition, had notice of the defective lighting, and caused the accident.
Key quotations
“A municipality has a duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition”
“[T]he municipality breaches such duty if it permits a dangerous or potentially dangerous condition to exist and cause injury”
Factual background
In June 2015 Betty Jean DiBiaso was killed at a Queens intersection after the street lights failed for more than three months despite numerous 311 reports. The plaintiff, as administrator of DiBiaso’s estate, sued the City of New York alleging negligence for the defective lighting.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Queens County denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on negligence claims concerning street‑light maintenance. The City sought reargument; the court reaffirmed its denial. The City appealed the January 6, 2022 order (later superseded by the October 7, 2022 order) and the October order was affirmed. The plaintiff’s cross‑appeal was dismissed.