You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COUNTY WAS AFFIRMATIVELY...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COUNTY WAS AFFIRMATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEREFORE THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The county demonstrated it did not have written notice of the condition and was not affirmatively negligent:

The complaint alleged that a dangerous or defective condition existed as a result of defendant’s negligent snow and ice removal operations and procedures, and its failure to provide “a means of ingress/egress with a handrail.” …

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition as required by Chautauqua County Local Law No. 4-09 … . In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether such prior written notice was given … . Further, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding the applicability of an exception to the prior written notice requirement, i.e., as relevant here, that defendant “affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence” … . A municipality” ‘may not be held liable for the mere passive failure to remove all snow and ice’ ” or to install a handrail because “[s]uch acts are acts of omission rather than affirmative acts of negligence” … . Here, plaintiff’s submissions establish only defendant’s alleged “nonfeasance, as opposed to affirmative negligence,” and the exception to the prior written notice requirement for affirmative acts of negligence therefore does not apply … . Brockway v County of Chautauqua, 2020 NY Slip Op 05659, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUDDLE ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING AND DISPOSITION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY FAMILY COURT ACT 1113 (FATHER WAS SERVED BY EMAIL) AND THEREFORE THE 30-DAY APPEAL DEADLINE DID NOT APPLY; FATHER’S STRIKING THE 14-YEAR-OLD CHILD ONCE DURING A MULTI-PERSON MELEE AFTER THE CHILD BROKE THE WINDOW OF FATHER’S CAR WITH A ROCK DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT MEET FACE TO FACE WITH DEFENDANT BEFORE THREE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WERE MISSED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE ARGUMENT SURVIVES THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL; DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL DID NOT SURVIVE THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT ASSERT THE DEPRIVATION INFECTED THE PLEA AGREEMENT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS MADE TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE CASEWORKER, UNDER THE FACTS, ACTED AS AN AGENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING THE INTERVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WHO KIDNAPPED HER BIOLOGICAL CHILD WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM SORA REGISTRATION (FOURTH DEPT).
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE PLED WITH PARTICULARITY (FOURTH 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

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE... THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT OWE A SPECIAL DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WHO...