Boddie v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boddie v. City of New Rochelle

233 A.D.2d 284, 649 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11616

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 284 (Boddie v. City of New Rochelle) 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

Boddie v. City of New Rochelle, 233 A.D.2d 284, 649 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated September 28,1995, as granted the branch of the motion of the defendant City of New Rochelle which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff has failed to raise any triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the municipal defendant was given prior written notice of the alleged hazardous condition, as required by the City Charter of the City of New Rochelle § 127 (A), or whether an exception to that requirement existed in this case. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated September 28,1995, as granted the branch of the motion of the defendant City of New Rochelle which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff has failed to raise any triable issues of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the municipal defendant was given prior written notice of the alleged hazardous condition, as required by the City Charter of the City of New Rochelle § 127 (A), or whether an exception to that requirement existed in this case. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 284, 649 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boddie-v-city-of-new-rochelle-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack