Donnelly v. Village of Perry
| Decision Date | 14 May 1982 |
| Citation | 451 N.Y.S.2d 494,88 A.D.2d 764 |
| Parties | Debra DONNELLY, Respondent, v. The VILLAGE OF PERRY, Appellant, and Jasper P. Zanghi and Augusta Zanghi, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mark G. Farrell by Barbara DeLgross, Buffalo, for appellant.
Smallwood, Cook, Stout & Erickson by Jeffrey Erickson, Warsaw, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P. J., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, BOOMER and SCHNEPP, JJ.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that she was injured when she was caused to fall on defective steps located in front of Zanghi's Market at 29 Covington Street in the Village of Perry. Since it is not alleged that written notice of the dangerous condition had been given to the village clerk as required by section 6-628 of the Village Law, defendant village moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. par. 7). Special Term denied the motion, reasoning that because "steps" are not mentioned in section 6-628, such prior written notice was not required.
On oral argument the parties stipulated that no notice of a defective condition was ever given to the village clerk. It was also confirmed that in front of defendant Zanghi's Market there are two sets of steps, one connecting the portion of the street used for vehicular traffic to the public sidewalk and the other extending from the public sidewalk up to the entrance to Zanghi's Market. The parties further stipulated that the steps are for pedestrian use and that the accident happened on the steps located between that part of the street used for vehicular traffic and the public sidewalk.
Section 6-628 of the Village Law provides:
"No civil action shall be maintained against the village for damages or injuries to person or property sustained in consequence of any street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk or crosswalk being defective, out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed or for damages or injuries to person or property sustained solely in consequence of the existence of snow or ice upon any sidewalk, crosswalk, street, highway, bridge or culvert unless written notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition or of the existence of the snow or ice, relating to the particular place, was actually given to the village clerk and there was a failure or neglect within a reasonable time after the receipt of such notice to repair or remove the defect, danger or obstruction complained of, or to cause the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferris v. County of Suffolk
...sidewalks. A boardwalk is generally for pedestrian use, and therefore is similar in nature to a sidewalk (Donnelly v. Village of Perry, 88 A.D.2d 764, 765, 451 N.Y.S.2d 494; Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, 28 A.D.2d 558, 280 N.Y.S.2d 272). Brookhaven Town Code § 84-1 requires prior written......
-
Pardi v. Barone
...v. Village of Potsdam, 228 A.D.2d 79, 82, 651 N.Y.S.2d 748 [sidewalk is considered part of the street]; Donnelly v. Village of Perry, 88 A.D.2d 764, 765, 451 N.Y.S.2d 494; see also, Schillawski v. State of New York, 9 N.Y.2d 235, 238, 213 N.Y.S.2d 68, 173 N.E.2d The question which befalls t......
-
Farnsworth v. Village of Potsdam
...It is a well-established principle of law that a sidewalk is part of the public street or highway (see, Donnelly v. Village of Perry, 88 A.D.2d 764, 765, 451 N.Y.S.2d 494), and that the duty of maintaining the sidewalks in a safe condition belongs to the municipality (see, Roark v. Hunting,......
-
Hinton v. Vill. of Pulaski
...standard sidewalk would serve" ( 93 N.Y.2d 936, 937–938, 693 N.Y.S.2d 69, 715 N.E.2d 96 [1999], citing Donnelly v. Village of Perry, 88 A.D.2d 764, 765, 451 N.Y.S.2d 494 [4th Dept. 1982] [holding that steps between a roadway and public sidewalk were "the equivalent of a sidewalk" because th......