Claudio v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claudio v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

235 A.D.2d 385, 652 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 191

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 13, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated February 22, 1996, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she tripped over a tree root and fell on the sidewalk in the Village of Patchogue. The plaintiffs, however, failed to allege compliance with the Village’s ordinance requiring prior written notice. In addition, the conduct ascribed to the Village, planting the tree and subsequently failing to prune or uproot it, does not constitute affirmative negligence. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint (see, Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 74 NY2d 917; Parella v Levin, 111 AD2d 750). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated February 22, 1996, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she tripped over a tree root and fell on the sidewalk in the Village of Patchogue. The plaintiffs, however, failed to allege compliance with the Village’s ordinance requiring prior written notice. In addition, the conduct ascribed to the Village, planting the tree and subsequently failing to prune or uproot it, does not constitute affirmative negligence. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the complaint (see, Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 74 NY2d 917; Parella v Levin, 111 AD2d 750). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Claudio v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue, 235 A.D.2d 385, 652 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

235 A.D.2d 385 (Claudio v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related