Zortman v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zortman v. City of Niagara Falls

101 A.D.2d 711, 475 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18280

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

DecidedApril 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 711 (Zortman 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

Zortman v. City of Niagara Falls, 101 A.D.2d 711, 475 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, defendant’s motion denied, and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: The court erred in setting aside the verdict of no cause for action in favor of defendant. Plaintiff failed to plead or prove compliance with the written notice provision contained in the city charter (Niagara Falls City Charter, § 323-b), a condition precedent to bringing an action to recover for injuries incurred because of a defective or unsafe sidewalk. Additionally, plaintiff failed to establish that the [712]*712condition of the sidewalk was caused by any affirmative act of the city (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162,166; Shaw v City of Auburn, 91 AD2d 817, affd 59 NY2d 780). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, McGowan, J. — personal injury.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, defendant’s motion denied, and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: The court erred in setting aside the verdict of no cause for action in favor of defendant. Plaintiff failed to plead or prove compliance with the written notice provision contained in the city charter (Niagara Falls City Charter, § 323-b), a condition precedent to bringing an action to recover for injuries incurred because of a defective or unsafe sidewalk. Additionally, plaintiff failed to establish that the [712]*712condition of the sidewalk was caused by any affirmative act of the city (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162,166; Shaw v City of Auburn, 91 AD2d 817, affd 59 NY2d 780). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, McGowan, J. — personal injury.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 711, 475 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zortman-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack