Hall v. Village of Spring Valley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall v. Village of Spring Valley

276 A.D.2d 591, 715 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10425

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 591 (Hall v. Village of Spring Valley) 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

Hall v. Village of Spring Valley, 276 A.D.2d 591, 715 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated November 30, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[592]*592Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A notice of claim filed against the defendant in an action which was dismissed in 1995 did not constitute prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition (see, Halali v City of New York, 253 AD2d 849; Ortsman v Town of Oyster Bay, 178 AD2d 588), and the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs expert was insufficient to show that the defendant caused or created the alleged defect (see, Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444; Enrichment Enters. v Jempris Realty Corp., 272 AD2d 432; Van Skyock v Burlington N.-Santa Fe Co., 265 AD2d 545). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated November 30, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[592]*592Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A notice of claim filed against the defendant in an action which was dismissed in 1995 did not constitute prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition (see, Halali v City of New York, 253 AD2d 849; Ortsman v Town of Oyster Bay, 178 AD2d 588), and the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs expert was insufficient to show that the defendant caused or created the alleged defect (see, Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444; Enrichment Enters. v Jempris Realty Corp., 272 AD2d 432; Van Skyock v Burlington N.-Santa Fe Co., 265 AD2d 545). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 591, 715 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-village-of-spring-valley-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack