From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Unger v. Village of Fayetteville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1991
175 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

July 12, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On October 3, 1982, plaintiff was injured when he was struck by an automobile as he walked on Highbridge Street, a county road in the Village of Fayetteville. Plaintiff brought suit against the Village, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, and the driver and owner of the vehicle, alleging that, at the site of the accident, he was forced to walk in the roadway because the sidewalk terminated and the shoulder of the road was uneven. He also alleged that the streetlight in the vicinity of the accident, designated Niagara Mohawk pole #17, was not functioning.

Defendant Village moved for dismissal of the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no duty to maintain Highbridge Street and that plaintiff had failed to plead that the Village had received prior written notice of the alleged defects in the road. The motion was denied, and we affirm.

Village Law § 6-628 requires written notice of "actual physical defects in the surface" of a street (Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 N.Y.2d 362, 366). The statute does not apply to a burned-out streetlight. Additionally, plaintiff has alleged, and defendant does not dispute, that the Village undertook to provide streetlights on Highbridge Street in the vicinity of the accident. Maintenance of existing streetlights is a proprietary function of the municipality (see, Oeters v City of New York, 270 N.Y. 364; Kamnitzer v City of New York, 265 App. Div. 636) and, on these facts, application of the "special duty" doctrine (see, Kircher v City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255) is unwarranted (see, Thompson v City of New York, 164 A.D.2d 773). Plaintiff's unchallenged allegation that defendant failed to maintain its previously installed streetlight in proper working order is sufficient to state a cause of action against the Village.


Summaries of

Unger v. Village of Fayetteville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1991
175 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Unger v. Village of Fayetteville

Case Details

Full title:JOHN UNGER, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF FAYETTEVILLE, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1991

Citations

175 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
572 N.Y.S.2d 261

Citing Cases

Thompson v. City of New York

induced their reasonable reliance on such undertaking (Kircher v City of Jamestown, [ 74 N.Y.2d 251]; see…

Prendergast v. Cosco

We reject the further contention of the Village that the faded pavement markings on Clinton Street are…