Bonilla v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead

49 A.D.3d 788, 853 N.Y.2d 910
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[789]*789The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead (hereinafter the defendant) failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issues of whether it received prior written notice of the defect and whether the defendant’s contractor created the defect through excavation at or near the location of the accident (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Bonilla v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead, 49 A.D.3d 788, 853 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 788 (Bonilla v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jordan-Hunte v. City of New York
104 A.D.3d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Reiser v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre
70 A.D.3d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Sanatass v. Town of North Hempstead
64 A.D.3d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)