From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kadlecik v. Village of Endicott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 20, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Broome County (Fischer, J.).


Plaintiffs contend that the prior written notice of defect requirement of Village Law § 6-628 is inapplicable to this action based upon a slip and fall which occurred on a walkway near the parking lot of a golf course owned, maintained and operated by defendant Village of Endicott in Broome County. According to plaintiffs, the fall was caused by ice and snow on the walkway, and the fall occurred as plaintiff Patricia J. Kadlecik was proceeding from her car to the clubhouse where she was to attend a luncheon in a facility run by a concessionaire pursuant to a license agreement with the Village. Plaintiffs contend that the license agreement was the functional equivalent of a lease. It is well established that when a municipality acts in a proprietary capacity, as a landlord, it is subject to the same principles of tort law as is a private landlord (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 511). Since prior written notice laws serve to limit or reduce a municipality's duty, they are in derogation of the common law and are to be strictly construed (Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 N.Y.2d 362, 365-366). Based upon these principles, plaintiffs contend that the prior written notice requirement of Village Law § 6-628 is not applicable when a municipality acts in a proprietary capacity as a landlord.

Regardless of the validity of the legal theory advanced by plaintiffs, we are of the view that their complaint was properly dismissed against the Village. The licensing agreement entered into by the Village and the concessionaire is expressly limited to the second floor of the clubhouse and a one-story building and open-sided pavilion. There is no proof in the record that the Village was acting in a proprietary capacity as a landlord with regard to the walkway where the fall occurred and that the walkway was not a part of the public golf course owned, operated and maintained by the Village. We also agree with Supreme Court that the location of the walkway on a public recreational facility does not preclude application of the prior written notice requirement (see, Englehardt v Town of Hempstead, 141 A.D.2d 601, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 808 [written notice requirement applicable to boardwalk on public dock]). In short, plaintiffs failed to submit any proof to show that the slip and fall did not occur on a sidewalk subject to the prior written notice requirement of Village Law § 6-628.

Plaintiffs also argue that the written notice requirement is inapplicable since the ice and snow accumulation which caused the fall was created by the affirmative acts of the Village (see, Bown v Village of Lynbrook, 17 N.Y.2d 826), but the record contains no factual allegations to support this argument. Supreme Court correctly granted the Village's motion for summary judgment and its order should therefore be affirmed.

Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Kadlecik v. Village of Endicott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Kadlecik v. Village of Endicott

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA J. KADLECIK et al., Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF ENDICOTT…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 619

Citing Cases

Van Wageningen v. City of Ithaca

ts thoroughfares or sidewalks, it cannot be held liable unless such written notice of the allegedly defective…

Murine v. Utica

Supreme Court properly granted that part of the City's motion seeking dismissal of the complaint insofar as…