Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Parks v. Hutchins 78 N.Y.2d 1049

← Cases

Parks v. Hutchins

78 N.Y.2d 1049 Court N.Y. Decision date 1991-10-17 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1049
Veronica K. Parks et al., Respondents, v Theodore Hutchins et al., Defendants, Long Island Rail Road, Respondent, and City of New York, Appellant.
Argued September 5, 1991;
decided October 17, 1991
p. 1051
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel (Trudi Mara Schleifer and Ellen B. Fishman of counsel), for appellant.
Charles Haydon and Thomas Rubertone for Veronica K. Parks and another, respondents.
Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., for Long Island Rail Road, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that, in the circumstances of this case, defendant City of New York was not entitled to prior written notice pursuant to the so-called "pothole law” (Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-201 [c] [2] [formerly § 394a-1.0 [d] [2]), and that, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that defendant committed negligent acts which constituted a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 , 499).

Inasmuch as the question of the apportionment of liability between the parties following ‘the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the complaint against defendant Long Island Rail Road was neither raised nor argued in this Court we have no need to address that issue.

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Bellacosa taking no part.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited