Akcelik v. Town of Islip

• Decision Date: 06 March 2007
• Docket Number: 2006-04211.
• Citation: Akcelik v. Town of Islip, 38 AD3d 483, 831 NYS2d 491, 2007 NY Slip Op 1821 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
• Parties: CELAL AKCELIK, Respondent, v. TOWN OF ISLIP, Appellant, and COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

38 A.D.3d 483

831 N.Y.S.2d 491

2007 NY Slip Op 01821

CELAL AKCELIK, Respondent, v.TOWN OF ISLIP, Appellant, and COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Respondent.

2006-04211.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided March 6, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of Islip appeals, as limited by its brief, from so

much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 27, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted as against the defendantTown of Islip is granted.

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for personal injuries caused by an improperly maintained street unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect, or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (seeAmabile v City of Buffalo,93 NY2d 471, 473-474[1999];Wilkie v Town of Huntington,29 AD3d 898[2006];Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc.,20 AD3d 511[2005]).

In this case, the Town of Islip made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through the affidavits of the Executive Assistants to the Town's Clerk and Commissioner of Public Works, that it had no prior written notice of the condition complained of (seeAlvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320[1986];Wilkie v Town of Huntington, supra;Lopez v G&J...