Healy v. Village of Patchogue
Decision Date | 11 April 2006 |
Docket Number | 2005-03537. |
Parties | SHARON A. HEALY, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF PATCHOGUE, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order dated February 22, 2005 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, upon reargument, the motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, the cross motion is denied as academic, and the order dated September 20, 2004 is modified accordingly.
Pursuant to Village Law § 6-628, a village may be liable for personal injuries caused by a dangerous condition on its streets if the village has received prior written notice of the condition (see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Katz v. City of New York, 87 NY2d 241, 243 [1995]; Farrago v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 17 AD3d 631, 632 [2005]). The Court of Appeals has recognized only two exceptions to the prior written notice rule, namely, where the village created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a "special use" confers a special benefit to the village (see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, supra at 474).
Here, on its motion for summary judgment, the defendant Village of Patchogue established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The deposition testimony of the Village's Superintendent of Public Works, as well as the affidavits of the Village's Clerk and Highway Foreman, established that the Village did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous condition in the roadway which allegedly caused the plaintiff's injuries (see Rochford v. City of Yonkers, 12 AD3d 433 [2004]; Butts v. Village of Sag Harbor, 260 AD2d 419 [1999]). Since, in response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village received prior written notice of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Andruk v. Vill. of Southampton
... 1 2018 NY Slip Op 34409(U) MADELYN ANDRUK, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON, TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, SOUTHAMPTON ENTERPRISES, LLC, doing business as CITARELLA and ... 2012]; Daniel v City of New York, 91 A.D.3d ... 699, 936 N.Y.S.2d 897 [2d Dept 2012]; Healy v Village of ... Patchogue, 28 A.D.3d 519, 813 N.Y.S.2d 499 [2d Dept ... 2006]; Betzold v Town of ... ...
-
Andruk v. Vill. of Southampton
...2018 NY Slip Op 34409(U) MADELYN ANDRUK, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON, TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, SOUTHAMPTON ENTERPRISES, LLC, doing business as CITARELLA and ... 2012]; Daniel v City of New York, 91 A.D.3d ... 699, 936 N.Y.S.2d 897 [2d Dept 2012]; Healy v Village of ... Patchogue, 28 A.D.3d 519, 813 N.Y.S.2d 499 [2d Dept ... 2006]; Betzold v Town of ... ...
-
Keane v. Petrillo Family Three, LLC
...lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 710 [2005] [citing Village of Bronxville Code § 6-628; Village Law § 6-658; see Healy v Village of Patchogue, 28 A.D.3d 519, 519 [2d Dept 2006]). Here, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to rebut the Village's showing that it was not responsible for the alleged def......
-
Keane v. Petrillo Family Three, LLC
...lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 710 [2005] [citing Village of Bronxville Code § 6-628; Village Law § 6-658; see Healy v Village of Patchogue, 28 A.D.3d 519, 519 [2d Dept 2006]). Here, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to rebut the Village's showing that it was not responsible for the alleged def......