An Officer employed by the City of New York was awarded a $350,000 settlement from the City of New York after injuring his hip after tripping over the remnants of a street sign. The sign was removed; however, the base of the pole supporting the sign was not removed creating a dangerous hazard. The Officer tripped on the metal protrusion while chasing a perpetrator. The Officer suffered a hip injury which necessitated arthroscopic surgery. The Officer was subsequently awarded a ¾ line-of-duty disability pension. After the accident, the Officer was unaware of his right to sue and let the 90-day time limitation to file a notice of claim against the City of New York lapse. Another member of the service alerted this Officer of DCD’s newsletters and expertise in handling line-of-duty accidents. The Officer contacted and retained DCD. DCD immediately filed a notice of claim and then made an application to a Kings County Supreme Court Justice seeking permission to file the notice of claim past the 90-day statutory time frame. Fortunately, a Judge granted the application thereby allowing the lawsuit to proceed. DCD sued the City of New York pursuant to GML §205-e alleging the City violated §§7-210(a)(6) and 19-152 of the New York City Administrative Code. In order for the City of New York to be responsible for injuries suffered as a result of a defective sidewalk pursuant to §7-210(a)(6), the injured party must show either the City had prior written notice of the defect or that the City of New York created the defect. DCD subpoenaed numerous records from various City agencies in an effort to prove either prior written notice or that the Department of Transportation created the condition by improperly removing the street sign leaving a portion of the metal post. During the discovery process, the City of New York stonewalled DCD in DCD’s numerous attempts to retrieve Department of Transportation records. However, DCD discovered a “Big Apple” map which detailed several sidewalk defects near the site of the metal post. Nevertheless, the City denied any liability and filed a summary judgment motion requesting the case be dismissed. Joseph L. Decolator defended the motion; however, a Justice of Kings County Supreme Court dismissed the entire case. Mr. Decolator was convinced the Justice was wrong in dismissing the case and made a motion to the same Court to reargue the decision dismissing the case. Mr. Decolator argued the Big Apple map showed defects in the area of the post protrusion and, therefore, created a genuine issue of fact that the City had notice of the defect. The Court sided with Mr. Decolator in reversing her decision. The Court noted that the plaintiff, “demonstrated the Court misapprehended the facts provided by the City in their summary judgment motion.” The case settled for $350,000 at a pre-trial conference.