Case ID: ad3d_92/html/0457-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymin Cabrera et al., Respondents, v New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
    [937 NYS2d 848]
   Defendant Department of Education (DOE) is not entitled to summary judgment because there is sufficient evidence in the record to raise a question of fact as to whether it knew of a recurring dangerous condition in the fence and routinely left it unaddressed (see Uhlich v Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y., 305 AD2d 107 [2003]) or whether it undertook repairs and performed them negligently (see e.g. Grossman v Amalgamated Hous. Corp., 298 AD2d 224, 226-227 [2002]).

The City is not a proper party to this action (see Bailey v City of New York, 55 AD3d 426 [2008]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.