Cases

*493To impose liability on defendant City for a defective condition of a tree well, plaintiff must show that the municipality either received prior written notice of the alleged defect or caused or created the defective condition through an affirmative act of negligence (see Tucker v City of New York, 84 AD3d 640, 642-643 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; Oboler v

*493To impose liability on defendant City for a defective condition of a tree well, plaintiff must show that the municipality either received prior written notice of the alleged defect or caused or created the defective condition through an affirmative act of negligence (see Tucker v City of New York, 84 AD3d 640, 642-643 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]; Oboler v

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered October 11, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In this personal injury action, arising from a trip and fall on a public sidewalk abutting premises owned by defendant Hous

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and false arrest, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), which denied their motion to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York and granted the City’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff Victor Rosario w

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on September 14, 1988, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 4401, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a new trial. On this appeal, we are asked to extend liability to the City of New York for failure to take steps to attenuate injury which resulted, in this instanc

Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth. (2019 NY Slip Op 05079) Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth. 2019 NY Slip Op 05079 Decided on June 25, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporti

Matter of Rosario v New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (2019 NY Slip Op 02884) Matter of Rosario v New York City Dept. of Social Servs. 2019 NY Slip Op 02884 Decided on April 17, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered August 27, 2012, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim as to the infant plaintiff alone, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Upon consideration of the factors relevant to deciding a motion for leave to file a late notice of cl

Matter of Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth. 2026 NY Slip Op 04200 July 1, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Manuel Rosario, appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, respondent. Suprem

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2003, which granted *148defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant, by adducing evidence that it had no notice of the alleged hazard, i.e., a bottle covered with newspaper discarded on subway station stairs, carried

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered August 19, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s answer, directed entry of judgment in plaintiffs favor on the issue of liability, and set the matter down for an inquest as to damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied and the answer rei

623 F.Supp.2d 454 (2009) Ronald AMBROSE, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Detective Vito Buonsante, Lieutenant Shields, Detective Jose Rosario, Detective Dan Danaher, and John and Jane Does, Defendants. Case No. 02-CV-10200 (KMK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 31, 2009. *457 Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq., Shu

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Transit Authority dated October 14, 1994, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petitioner from his position as a transit police officer. *512Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs. The New York City Tran

Separate appeals by Madeline Chocolates Novelties, Inc., the third-party defendant in action No. 1, and New York City Industrial Development Agency, a defendant in action No. 2, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated February 6, 2008. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs, for reasons stated by Justice Kerrigan at the Supreme Court. Fisher, J.E, Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ.,

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered October 18, 1995, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted the motion of the third-party defendant L.P. Electronic Alarms Systems, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determi *665 nation of the Municipal Housing Authority for the City of Yonkers dated March 27, 2014, which, after a hearing, confirmed the termination of the petitioner’s participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (see 42 USC § 1437f [b] [1]).

WESLEY, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, Defendants contend that the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment on the pleadings for immunity under New York state law, and their motions for summary judgment for immunity under federal law. We do not have jurisdiction over the state law immunity claims, as the immunity is from liability, not suit. We do have jurisdiction over the federal claims, and hold that the

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals *365from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated October 22, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff slipped and fell as she descended a subw

In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, etc., the plaintiff in both actions appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 28, 2005, as denied that branch of her motion which was to restore the actions to the tried calendar. Ordered that order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts, without cost

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Rong Chen Mo and Cui Juan He appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated June 16, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are di