Heywood v. City of Buffalo

18 A.D.2d 770, 235 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6521
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 7, 1962
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 770 (Heywood 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
Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 18 A.D.2d 770, 235 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party, and complaint dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: The City of Buffalo by Local Law No. 1 of the Ijocal Laws of 1958 of the City of Buffalo, enacted February 26, 1958, amended its charter to provide that no civil action shall be maintained against the city for damage or injuries to person or property sustained in consequence of any street, part or portion of any street * * * being defective, out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed * * * unless previous to the occurrence resulting in such damage or injuries written notice of such alleged condition relating to the particular place and location was actually given to the city clerk and there was a failure or neglect within a reasonable time thereafter to remedy or correct the alleged condition complained of.” Calais Street was an unpaved dead-end public street in said city. It was full of holes or ruts. From time to time the city spread cinders upon the surface of the street, but the holes reappeared in a short time. The infant plaintiff riding a bicycle on the street on April 5, 1958 misjudged the distance from one of the holes in the street and the bicycle slipped into it, throwing her to the street. She sustained injuries. No written notice had been given to the city beforehand. The spreading of cinders and the subsequent erosion did not constitute the creation! of a danger by the city. The action was [771]*771barred by the charter provision. (Fullerton v. City of Schenectady, 309 N. Y. 701.) (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in favor of plaintiff, in a negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J., Goldman, J. P., Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Related

Capobianco v. Mari
272 A.D.2d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Waring v. City of Saratoga Springs
92 A.D.2d 1080 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Bieber v. City of Newcastle
242 F. Supp. 457 (D. Wyoming, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.2d 770, 235 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heywood-v-city-of-buffalo-nyappdiv-1962.