# Gerzel v. City of New York

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · February 25, 1986 · 117 A.D.2d 549

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5883841

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Andrew Gerzel v. City of New York
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** February 25, 1986
- **Citations:** 117 A.D.2d 549; 499 N.Y.S.2d 60; 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52825
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lynch
- **Judges:** Lynch
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5883841

## Opinion text

Lynch, J.,
dissents in a memorandum as follows: I would affirm for the reasons stated by Special Term. I add only that I expressly dispute the majority’s pivotal conclusion that "[i]t is manifest on the record that the city acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim by reason of the accident report and photographs”. A photograph showing steps with risers of varying height gives neither actual nor constructive notice of a claim that an accident was caused by the varying height when the report accompanying the photograph states:
"5. If [accident was] caused by any unusual conditions, defects, foreign objects, please describe fully: none
"6. Description of Accident: mr. zerzel [sic] fell coming out cannon’s walk—MISSED THE (2) STEP * * *
"15 * * * Any defects in Floor or Surface none * * *
"18. Injured person’s statement on accident. MR. zerzel say [sic] HE WAS WALKING OUT OF CANNON’S WALK AND DID NOT SEE THE (2) STEP”.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5883841. Public record. Not legal advice.