Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls

112 A.D.2d 17, 490 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50648

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 17 (Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls, 112 A.D.2d 17, 490 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion, treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), was properly granted. Plaintiffs failed to submit competent proof to contradict the city’s assertion that it had not received the statutorily required prior written notice of the alleged defect (see, Waring v City of Saratoga Springs, 92 AD2d 1080). Plaintiffs argue that the city had actual knowledge of the defect and is thus estopped from denying lack of notice. That argument lacks merit (see, Drzewiecki v City of Buffalo, 51 AD2d 870). Although Niagara Falls City Charter § 323-b does not specifically mention the alleged defect, the statutory language is [18]*18broad enough to encompass the alleged defects (see, Donnelly v Village of Perry, 88 AD2d 764). Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments also lack merit. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion, treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), was properly granted. Plaintiffs failed to submit competent proof to contradict the city’s assertion that it had not received the statutorily required prior written notice of the alleged defect (see, Waring v City of Saratoga Springs, 92 AD2d 1080). Plaintiffs argue that the city had actual knowledge of the defect and is thus estopped from denying lack of notice. That argument lacks merit (see, Drzewiecki v City of Buffalo, 51 AD2d 870). Although Niagara Falls City Charter § 323-b does not specifically mention the alleged defect, the statutory language is [18]*18broad enough to encompass the alleged defects (see, Donnelly v Village of Perry, 88 AD2d 764). Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments also lack merit. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 17, 490 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack