From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 4, 1985
112 A.D.2d 17 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

June 4, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Green, O'Donnell and Pine, JJ.


Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant's motion, treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), was properly granted. Plaintiffs failed to submit competent proof to contradict the city's assertion that it had not received the statutorily required prior written notice of the alleged defect (see, Waring v. City of Saratoga Springs, 92 A.D.2d 1080). Plaintiffs argue that the city had actual knowledge of the defect and is thus estopped from denying lack of notice. That argument lacks merit (see, Drzewiecki v. City of Buffalo, 51 A.D.2d 870). Although Niagara Falls City Charter § 323-b does not specifically mention the alleged defect, the statutory language is broad enough to encompass the alleged defects (see, Donnelly v Village of Perry, 88 A.D.2d 764). Plaintiffs' remaining arguments also lack merit.


Summaries of

Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 4, 1985
112 A.D.2d 17 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls

Case Details

Full title:LARRY ZIMMERMAN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, Respondent…

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 17 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Weinfeld v. Robert Roth Associates, Inc.

Pursuant to the Town Law, no action may be maintained unless prior written notice of the defect is given…

Rebaudo v. N.Y. Tel. Co.

And explicit words such as "broken glass, stones and debris" are not necessary to bring them within the…