Tamas v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*517Defendants have not submitted any evidence establishing prima facie that the subject 2000 Ford F-350 utility pickup truck assigned to plaintiff was suitable for the intended use as a “lead vehicle,” the operator of which is required to frequently exit and enter the vehicle to, among other things, issue summonses and apply stickers to cars parked in violation of street cleaning rules (cf. Cleary v Dietz Co., 222 NY 126, 132-133 [1917]). In any event, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the truck was suitable for such intended use by submitting his testimony and affidavit…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Vega v. Restani Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2012
- Bombero v. NAB Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Bodtman v. Living Manor Love, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Cleary v. R. E. Dietz Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917