Rogers v. Town of Ramapo

211 A.D.2d 775, 622 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 703
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 775 (Rogers v. Town of Ramapo) 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
Rogers v. Town of Ramapo, 211 A.D.2d 775, 622 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berger-[776]*776man, J.), dated October 19, 1993, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case and renewed at the close of the defendant’s case, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ theory at trial in this personal injury action was that loose dirt on the roadway caused a hazardous condition which precipitated the subject motorcycle accident. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the allegedly hazardous condition is one which would not immediately come to the Town’s attention absent actual notice thereof (see, Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 74 NY2d 917; Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 NY2d 362; cf., Hughes v Jahoda, 75 NY2d 881). Thus, the Town’s prior written notice statute applies (see, Local Laws, 1977, No. 4 of Town of Ramapo).

The plaintiffs do not dispute that the Town never received written notice of the condition prior to the accident. There is no evidence that the Town created the condition through affirmative acts of negligence (see, Grant v Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor, 180 AD2d 716), or that the facts of this case fall within the narrow exception stated in Ferris v County of Suffolk (174 AD2d 70). The trial court therefore correctly granted the Town’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 4401. Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Farrell v. City of New York
49 A.D.3d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Min Whan Ock v. City of New York
34 A.D.3d 542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Roth v. Town of North Hempstead
273 A.D.2d 215 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Estrada v. City of New York
273 A.D.2d 194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Baez v. City of New York
236 A.D.2d 305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Strauss v. Incorporated Village of Ocean Beach
213 A.D.2d 626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
211 A.D.2d 775, 622 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-town-of-ramapo-nyappdiv-1995.