Walid v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walid v. County of Westchester

268 A.D.2d 582, 702 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 940

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 582 (Walid v. County of Westchester) 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

Walid v. County of Westchester, 268 A.D.2d 582, 702 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated March 8, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. While Village Code § 197-28 requires prior written notice of the alleged hazardous condition which caused the plaintiffs fall, there is no need to prove prior written notice where a Village or Town has created the hazardous condition (see, Doherty v Town of Orangetown, 221 AD2d 310). There is a question of fact as to whether the appellant created the alleged hazardous condition which caused the plaintiffs fall. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment (see, Doherty v Town of Orangetown, supra). Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated March 8, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. While Village Code § 197-28 requires prior written notice of the alleged hazardous condition which caused the plaintiffs fall, there is no need to prove prior written notice where a Village or Town has created the hazardous condition (see, Doherty v Town of Orangetown, 221 AD2d 310). There is a question of fact as to whether the appellant created the alleged hazardous condition which caused the plaintiffs fall. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment (see, Doherty v Town of Orangetown, supra). Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 582, 702 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walid-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack