Drzewiecki v. City of Buffalo

51 A.D.2d 870, 380 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11491
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 870 (Drzewiecki v. City of Buffalo) 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
Drzewiecki v. City of Buffalo, 51 A.D.2d 870, 380 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs recovered a verdict for property damage to their building resulting from vibrations caused when passing trucks and buses struck a depression in the street. The trial court set aside the verdict and dismissed the complaint [871]*871because plaintiffs failed to prove that the city clerk had received prior written notice of the defect as required by section 362 of the Buffalo City Charter. Concededly, such notice was not delivered to the city clerk. However, the city engineer had prior written notice and plaintiffs contend that substantial compliance is all that is required. The power of municipalities to insulate themselves from liability for damages resulting from nonfeasance is well established by statute (Second Class Cities Law, § 244; Village Law, § 6-628; Town Law, § 65-a) and court decision (MacMullen v City of Middletown, 187 NY 37; Fullerton v City of Schenectady, 285 App Div 545, affd 309 NY 701; Ellis v City of Geneva, 259 App Div 502, affd 288 NY 478) and in the absence of compliance with such statutory provisions where applicable, no cause of action exists. Any relief from this requirement must come from the Legislature and cannot come from the courts. Plaintiffs contend that the city is estopped from denying notice because of the correspondence of the city engineer acknowledging the defect and assuring them that the street would be fixed (cf. Matter of Daley v Greece Cent. S'chool Dist. No. 1, 21 AD2d 976, affd 17 NY2d 530, discussing estoppels re notice of claim under General Municipal Law, § 50-e). The issue is not whether the city had actual knowledge of the defect. Concededly, it did. But a city may deny recovery to a plaintiff for damages resulting from nonfeasance even though it has actual knowledge of the defect (see Ellis v City of Geneva, supra). The dismissal was proper because plaintiffs failed to establish the prior written notice required by the charter which was a necessary condition precedent to their cause of action (see Barry v Niagara Frontier Tr System, 35 NY2d 629, 633-634). (Appeal from order of Erie County Court affirming judgment of Buffalo City Court, in action for damages to property.) Present.—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Mahoney and Goldman, JJ.

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

Related

Gorman v. Town of Huntington
907 N.E.2d 292 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
Gorman v. Town of Huntington
47 A.D.3d 30 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Weisz v. City of Yonkers
168 Misc. 2d 901 (Yonkers City Court, 1996)
Wisnowski v. City of Syracuse
213 A.D.2d 1069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Lalley v. Adam, Meldrum & Anderson Co.
186 A.D.2d 1083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Deans v. City of Buffalo
181 A.D.2d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Weinfeld v. J. Robert Roth Associates, Inc.
177 A.D.2d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Piscione v. County of Oneida
159 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Pittel v. Town of Hempstead
154 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Wachowiak v. City of Buffalo
154 A.D.2d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Rebaudo v. New York Telephone Co.
139 Misc. 2d 711 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1988)
Krysinski v. City of Rochester
134 A.D.2d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Dunster v. City of Rome
129 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Bair v. City of New York
131 Misc. 2d 734 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls
112 A.D.2d 17 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Parella v. Levin
111 A.D.2d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Palazzo v. S.P.H.E. Real Estate, Inc.
105 A.D.2d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Gabri v. County of Niagara
99 A.D.2d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Cipriano v. City of New York
96 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Waring v. City of Saratoga Springs
92 A.D.2d 1080 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.2d 870, 380 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drzewiecki-v-city-of-buffalo-nyappdiv-1976.