You are here: / / No Demonstration Burst Water Pipe Could Have Been the Result of Negligent...
, ,

No Demonstration Burst Water Pipe Could Have Been the Result of Negligent Inspection or Maintenance; Municipality Immune from Negligent Design

In affirming Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant town with respect to damages allegedly caused by a burst storm water pipe, the Second Department determined plaintiffs did not raise a question of fact concerning negligent inspection or maintenance:

“A municipality is immune from liability arising out of claims that it negligently designed [a] sewerage system” or storm drainage system”… . However, a municipality is not immune from liability arising out of claims that it negligently maintained its storm drainage system…. For the plaintiffs to recover under a theory of negligent inspection or maintenance of the storm drainage system, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the defendants had ” notice of a dangerous condition or ha[d] reason to believe that the pipes ha[d] shifted or deteriorated and [were] likely to cause injury,’ that the [defendants] failed to make reasonable efforts to inspect and repair the defect,’ and that such failure caused the plaintiffs’ injuries”….  Bilotta v Town of Harrison, 2013 NY Slip Op 03444, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

You might also like
IF THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN VACATED, THE CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DO NOT APPLY; THERFORE THE MOTION TO RESTORE NEED NOT BE MADE WITHIN A YEAR AND NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITIORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION, REASONABLE EXCUSE, NO INTENT TO ABANDON, AND LACK OF PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AND ALLEGEDLY SENT A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DENIED RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IN REPLY; THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONSIDERED; IN ADDITION, THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE THE LETTER WAS MAILED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
Children’s Out-of-Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated to Support Neglect Finding
PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL.
A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant
ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION OR A MALICIOUS OR TORTIOUS ACT, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS AGENTS OF THE CLIENTS AND ALLEGEDLY ADVISING THEIR CLIENTS TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFFS (SECOND DEPT).
ELDERLY PLAINTIFF’S HEALTH PROBLEMS EXCUSED HER FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR A 50-h HEARING, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proof of Regular Cleaning Negated Constructive Notice Allegation​ Pre-Deposition Motion to Dismiss in Rear-End Collision Case Not Premature