Price v. Village of Phoenix

222 A.D.2d 1079, 635 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14157
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1079 (Price v. Village of Phoenix) 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
Price v. Village of Phoenix, 222 A.D.2d 1079, 635 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On November 26, 1991, plaintiff was injured when he stepped into a pothole in a parking lot owned by defendant. The complaint alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to adequately design, construct, maintain and repair the parking lot. Defendant asserted in its answer and established in its cross motion for summary judgment that it did not [1080]*1080have prior written notice of the defect (see, Village Law § 6-628; CPLR 9804; Witte v Incorporated Vil. of Port Washington N., 114 AD2d 359; Donnelly v Village of Perry, 88 AD2d 764, 765). Absent that notice, defendant can be held liable only for affirmative acts of negligence (see, Bryant v City of Newburgh, 193 AD2d 773). Here, plaintiff seeks to impose liability for conduct that amounts to no more than defendant’s failure to repair or maintain the parking lot, which does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence (see, Bryant v City of Newburgh, supra; Zizzo v City of New York, 176 AD2d 722, 723). The speculative conclusion of plaintiffs expert that defendant created a dangerous condition when it constructed the parking lot some 15 years earlier is insufficient to defeat defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Hurlbutt, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

HAWLEY, JAMES v. TOWN OF OVID
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Hawley v. Town of Ovid
108 A.D.3d 1034 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Schaal v. City of Utica
6 A.D.3d 1070 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hall v. City of Syracuse
275 A.D.2d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Townsend v. County of Allegany
233 A.D.2d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Babcock v. County of Oswego
169 Misc. 2d 605 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 1079, 635 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-village-of-phoenix-nyappdiv-1995.