Hart v. Incorporated Village

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hart v. Incorporated Village

193 A.D.2d 781, 598 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5229

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

DecidedMay 24, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 781 (Hart v. Incorporated Village) 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

Hart v. Incorporated Village, 193 A.D.2d 781, 598 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Incorporated Village of Valley Stream appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated June 7, 1991, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It cannot be said that the evidence submitted in support of the motion was sufficient to establish that no prior written notice of the alleged defective condition was given to the defendant Village prior to the plaintiffs accident (see, Mollahan v Village of Port Washington N., 153 AD2d 881; Stratton v City of Beacon, 91 AD2d 1018). Further, the court properly considered the plaintiffs’ claim that additional discovery was needed in order for them to have a full opportunity to litigate the prior notice question (see, CPLR 3212 [f]). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Incorporated Village of Valley Stream appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated June 7, 1991, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It cannot be said that the evidence submitted in support of the motion was sufficient to establish that no prior written notice of the alleged defective condition was given to the defendant Village prior to the plaintiffs accident (see, Mollahan v Village of Port Washington N., 153 AD2d 881; Stratton v City of Beacon, 91 AD2d 1018). Further, the court properly considered the plaintiffs’ claim that additional discovery was needed in order for them to have a full opportunity to litigate the prior notice question (see, CPLR 3212 [f]). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 781, 598 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-incorporated-village-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack