would like to bike but am a gimpy old lady......

You got that right :)

Nope, they said that they didn't. The last I saw was that they had asked someone to take a look at the tree. This is a few months ago, after my accident happened.

So a large tree branch severely damaged my car, which was parked on Sussex Street near Greene Street. Talking to people on the block, who said that they would never park or have their kids play near this tree, which has damaged other cars. Went to Division of Risk Management at City Hall to recoup our deductible for damage, and they sent us to Claims Resolution Corp., Inc., which has been hired by JC to adjudicate claims such as this one. They denied our claim because, according to JC tort claims Act, 59:4-3, no one had given "actual notice of a dangerous condition" previously, so City was not responsible. I then posted the story on social media, and a woman sent us all of her paperwork, saying that two years ago her car was also badly damaged by the same tree (and you can still see branches bent over electrical wires on the tree). This time CRC answered that, according to NJ Tort Claims NJSA 59:2-3, "a public entity is not liable for the exercise of discretion when, in the face of competing demands, it determines whether and hot to utilize or apply existing resources, including those allocated for equipment, facilities and personnel unless a court concludes that the determination for the public entity was palpably unreasonable." What in the world does this mean? Obviously all ways to elude payment for a "reasonable" approach to danger. I've lived in the neighborhood since 1991 and have seen limbs fall---even trees fall---and sometimes it is obvious and has been reported. Why isn't JC responsible if there have been numerous reports of danger?