Case Name: Raymin Cabrera et al., Respondents, v. New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2012-02-07
Citations: 92 A.D.3d 457
Docket Number: 
Parties: Raymin Cabrera et al., Respondents, v New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 457–458

Head Matter:
Raymin Cabrera et al., Respondents, v New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
[937 NYS2d 848]

Opinion:
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.