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

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 385 (Claudio v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 385, 652 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claudio-v-incorporated-village-of-patchogue-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack