You are here: / / VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO...
,

VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant village's motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been denied. Although the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the stop-sign “stump” over which plaintiff tripped, the village did not demonstrate it did not create the dangerous condition. There was evidence the stump was exposed (not buried) immediately after the village removed the stop sign:

” Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies'” … . ” The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality'” … . The affirmative negligence exception “is limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … .

Where, as here, the plaintiff has alleged that the affirmative negligence exception applies, the Village was required to show, prima facie, that the exception does not apply. Although the Village proved that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged defect … . Kelley v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 2016 NY Slip Op 02966, 2nd Dept 4-20-15


You might also like
DEFENDANT HOTEL PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; HOWEVER THE HOTEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED 100% OF THE FAULT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​
LYFT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A LYFT DRIVER; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON THE ASSURANCES OF SAFETY ON LYFT’S WEBSITE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Allegedly Assaulted by Intoxicated Patron–Proof Requirements Under Dram Shop Act Explained
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) TOOK AND ADVOCATED POSITIONS WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN; NEW CUSTODY HEARING ORDERED WITH A NEW AFC (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY WAS NOT REBUTTED WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER’S HUSBAND IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL UNDER A ‘BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’ ANALYSIS TO ADJUDICATE THE RESPONDENT, WITH WHOM A CHILD-PARENT BOND HAD DEVELOPED, THE FATHER (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE DELAY IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE MERITS WERE NOT DESCRIBED, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE WAS NOT REBUTTED, HOWEVER THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ABSENT THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF EXCUSE. POLICE OFFICER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT...