From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Capobianco v. Mari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 2000
272 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued April 14, 2000.

May 22, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Town of North Hempstead appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated May 17, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Howard S. Miller, Town Attorney, Manhasset, N.Y. (William J. Gillman of counsel), for appellant.

Birnbaum Birnbaum, Mineola, N.Y. (Barry N. Birnbaum of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

Lewis, Johs, Avallone, Aviles Kaufman, Melville, N.Y. (Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for defendants-respondents.

Before: DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the Town of North Hempstead, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff Anne D. Capobianco tripped on a defective sidewalk which had become raised and cracked due to a system of tree roots growing underneath it. The Town of North Hempstead repaired the sidewalk in 1988 or 1989. The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from an expert stating that the repair had been "inadequate" to prevent recurrence of the dangerous condition. However, there is no evidence in the record that a dangerous condition existed when the Town completed its repairs. There is no evidence that the Town received prior written notice of the recurrence of the dangerous condition, as required by Town Code of the Town of North Hempstead § 26-1. The allegation of a subsequent recurrence of a condition does not abrogate the need for prior written notice (see, Sipourene v. County of Nassau, ___; ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 22, 1999]; Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 18 A.D.2d 770).

JOY, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Capobianco v. Mari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 2000
272 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Capobianco v. Mari

Case Details

Full title:ANNE D. CAPOBIANCO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FRANK MARI, JR., ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 22, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 428

Citing Cases

Webster v. City of New York

At base, Plaintiffs' argument that the defect recurred following the City's repairs does not obviate Section…

Velazquez v. N.Y. City Transit Auth.

With respect to whether certain documents establish prior written notice, any documents created by the agency…