Gaddy v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaddy v. City of New York

184 A.D.2d 548, 584 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7819

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

DecidedJune 8, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 548 (Gaddy v. City of New York) 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

Gaddy v. City of New York, 184 A.D.2d 548, 584 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated March 14, 1990, which, upon granting an application by the defendant to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the notice provisions of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201 (c) (2), dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the City had attempted routine maintenance of the road where an accident occurred does not relieve the plaintiffs of their obligation to comply with the written notice provision of the City’s Administrative Code (see, Zigman v Town of Hempstead, 120 AD2d 520, 521). The alleged defect was the type of physical condition which would not ordinarily come to the attention of the municipality without notice (see, Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 74 NY2d 917, 919; Buccellato v County of Nassau, 158 AD2d 440, 441; cf., Hughes v Jahoda, 75 NY2d 881, 883). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta and O’Brien, 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 plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated March 14, 1990, which, upon granting an application by the defendant to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the notice provisions of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201 (c) (2), dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the City had attempted routine maintenance of the road where an accident occurred does not relieve the plaintiffs of their obligation to comply with the written notice provision of the City’s Administrative Code (see, Zigman v Town of Hempstead, 120 AD2d 520, 521). The alleged defect was the type of physical condition which would not ordinarily come to the attention of the municipality without notice (see, Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 74 NY2d 917, 919; Buccellato v County of Nassau, 158 AD2d 440, 441; cf., Hughes v Jahoda, 75 NY2d 881, 883). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 548, 584 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaddy-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack