You are here: / / IN THIS SIDEWALK/CURB SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID...
, ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK/CURB SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION OR CAUSE THE CONDITION BY SPECIAL USE (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk/curb slip and fall case, determined (1) the defendant village did not have written notice of the alleged dangerous condition. and (2), the defendant abutting property owner did create the condition or cause the condition by special use. Therefore the complaint against both defendants should have been dismissed:

… [T]he Village correctly contends that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, it was not required to establish both that it lacked prior written notice of the defect and that it had not created the defect … . Rather, upon the Village’s prima facie showing that it lacked prior written notice of the defect, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception to the prior written notice statute applied … . As the plaintiff did not meet this burden, the court should have granted the Village’s motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it.

… Scipione [defendant abutting property owner] demonstrated, prima facie, that he did not create the defect, that he did not cause the defect to occur because of a special use, and that the relevant section of the Village Charter did not make abutting landowners liable for injuries caused by sidewalk defects … . With respect to the issue of special use, Scipione’s evidence showed that the intended use of the step on which the plaintiff allegedly fell was “the normal intended use of the public way,” and that he did not “derive[ ] a special benefit from that property unrelated to the public use” … . Morales v Village of Ossining, 2023 NY Slip Op 03690, Second Dept 7-5-23

Similar “written notice” issue and result in O’Connor v City of Long Beach, 2023 NY Slip Op 03702, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk/curb defect which caused plaintiffs fall. Therefore the action against the village should have been dismissed.

Practice Point: Here the abutting property owner demonstrated he did not create the sidewalk/curb defect and did not cause the defect by special use. Therefore the action against the property owner should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL.
MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A TOWN POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED UNDERGOING A PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST AS A CANDIDATE FOR A COUNTY SWAT TEAM WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SUCH THAT THE POLICE OFFICER’S ONLY REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HIS ATTORNEY DIDN’T REQUEST THE SEARCH WARRANT DOCUMENTS, DIDN’T MAKE A SUPPRESSION MOTION, AND DIDN’T INFORM HIM THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS COULD BE CONTESTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation
PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION IN THIS UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROCEEDING WAS SERVED AFTER THE 20-DAY STATUTORY PERIOD FOR SERVICE AND WAS NOT SERVED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE (CPLR 7503(c)); THEREFORE THE APPLICATION TO STAY ARBITRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE AFFIDAVITS AND REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO... BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED ON THE FOIL CAUSE OF ACTION,...