Silburn v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silburn v. City of Poughkeepsie

28 A.D.3d 468, 813 N.Y.S.2d 193

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

DecidedApril 4, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 468 (Silburn v. City of Poughkeepsie) 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

Silburn v. City of Poughkeepsie, 28 A.D.3d 468, 813 N.Y.S.2d 193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 23, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[469]*469Pursuant to Poughkeepsie City Charter § 15.03, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the City of Poughkeepsie had prior written notice of a defect in a street before the City can be held hable for its alleged negligence in failing to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition (see Adams v City of Poughkeepsie, 296 AD2d 468 [2002]; see also Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Cabrera v City of New York, 21 AD3d 1047 [2005]; Estrada v City of New York, 273 AD2d 194 [2000]). However, such prior written notice is not required if the City affirmatively created the alleged defect (see Ovisinak v Town of Southold, 277 AD2d 295, 295-296 [2000]; see also Amabile v City of Buffalo, supra; Gormley v County of Nassau, 150 AD2d 342 [1989]). “Where a municipality establishes that it has not received the requisite written notice, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to submit competent evidence that the municipality affirmatively created the defect” (Adams v City of Poughkeepsie, supra at 469).

The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony and the affidavit of the business manager of the City’s Department of Public Works, which demonstrated that the City did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant affirmatively created the alleged defect (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 23, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

[469]*469Pursuant to Poughkeepsie City Charter § 15.03, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the City of Poughkeepsie had prior written notice of a defect in a street before the City can be held hable for its alleged negligence in failing to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition (see Adams v City of Poughkeepsie, 296 AD2d 468 [2002]; see also Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Cabrera v City of New York, 21 AD3d 1047 [2005]; Estrada v City of New York, 273 AD2d 194 [2000]). However, such prior written notice is not required if the City affirmatively created the alleged defect (see Ovisinak v Town of Southold, 277 AD2d 295, 295-296 [2000]; see also Amabile v City of Buffalo, supra; Gormley v County of Nassau, 150 AD2d 342 [1989]). “Where a municipality establishes that it has not received the requisite written notice, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to submit competent evidence that the municipality affirmatively created the defect” (Adams v City of Poughkeepsie, supra at 469).

The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony and the affidavit of the business manager of the City’s Department of Public Works, which demonstrated that the City did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant affirmatively created the alleged defect (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 468, 813 N.Y.S.2d 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silburn-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack