Benincasa v. Village of Irvington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benincasa v. Village of Irvington

290 A.D.2d 406, 737 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 468

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 406 (Benincasa v. Village of Irvington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benincasa v. Village of Irvington, 290 A.D.2d 406, 737 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), entered December 14, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made, at the close of evidence, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. On the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the finder of fact could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (see, Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the prior written notice requirements of Village Law § 6-628 apply (see, Donnelly v Village of Perry, 88 AD2d 764). The plaintiffs conceded that the defendant did not have prior written notice of the defective condition, and failed to show that the defendant created the condition by an affirmative act of negligence or that its use of the property constituted a special use for its benefit (see, ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v Village of Ossining, 257 AD2d 606; Barnes v City of Mount Vernon, 245 AD2d 407). Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), entered December 14, 2000, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made, at the close of evidence, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. On the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the finder of fact could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (see, Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the prior written notice requirements of Village Law § 6-628 apply (see, Donnelly v Village of Perry, 88 AD2d 764). The plaintiffs conceded that the defendant did not have prior written notice of the defective condition, and failed to show that the defendant created the condition by an affirmative act of negligence or that its use of the property constituted a special use for its benefit (see, ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v Village of Ossining, 257 AD2d 606; Barnes v City of Mount Vernon, 245 AD2d 407). Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 406, 737 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benincasa-v-village-of-irvington-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack