Kanopka v. Village of Freeport

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanopka v. Village of Freeport

121 A.D.2d 690, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58678

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

DecidedJune 30, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 690 (Kanopka v. Village of Freeport) 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

Kanopka v. Village of Freeport, 121 A.D.2d 690, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated December 19, 1984, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon lack of written notice of an alleged pothole condition.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The defendant concedes that it owned and maintained the roadway involved. Upon a review of the papers, including the verified complaint, which alleges that the defendant performed roadwork in the area, and the photographs annexed to the affirmation of the plaintiffs’ attorney in opposition, we conclude that Special Term correctly determined that there is a triable issue with regard to whether the defendant created the pothole which is alleged to be the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated December 19, 1984, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon lack of written notice of an alleged pothole condition.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The defendant concedes that it owned and maintained the roadway involved. Upon a review of the papers, including the verified complaint, which alleges that the defendant performed roadwork in the area, and the photographs annexed to the affirmation of the plaintiffs’ attorney in opposition, we conclude that Special Term correctly determined that there is a triable issue with regard to whether the defendant created the pothole which is alleged to be the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 690, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanopka-v-village-of-freeport-nyappdiv-1986.