From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Mount Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 2008
51 A.D.3d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-03715.

May 20, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of Mount Vernon appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 6, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Helen M. Blackwood, Mount Vernon, N.Y. (Hina Sherwani of counsel), for appellant.

Robert O. Corini, New Rochelle, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant City of Mount Vernon for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.

A municipality that has enacted a prior written notice law is excused from liability absent proof of prior written notice or an exception thereto ( see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 313; Smith v Town of Brookhaven, 45 AD3d 567). The Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule, "namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence . . . and where a `special use' confers a special benefit upon the locality" ( Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474; see Delgado v County of Suffolk, 40 AD3d 575, 575-576). Here, the defendant City of Mount Vernon established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that purportedly caused the plaintiffs fall ( see Smith v Town of Brookhaven, 45 AD3d at 568; Jacobs v Village of Rockville Ctr., 41 AD3d 539, 540). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Under the circumstances of this case, we disagree with the plaintiffs contention that the City is estopped from claiming, as a defense, the absence of prior written notice to the proper statutory designee ( cf. Gorman v Town of Huntington, 47 AD3d 30). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Mount Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 20, 2008
51 A.D.3d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Mount Vernon

Case Details

Full title:IZABEL RODRIGUEZ, Respondent, v. CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: May 20, 2008

Citations

51 A.D.3d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4676
858 N.Y.S.2d 751

Citing Cases

Pangerl v. Town of North Hempstead

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the function of the court is not to resolve issues but rather…

Nickerson v. City of N.Y.

The Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule, "namely, where the locality created the…