Lipari v. Town of Oyster Bay

Decision Date23 April 2014
CitationLipari v. Town of Oyster Bay, 2014 NY Slip Op 2755, 116 A.D.3d 927, 983 N.Y.S.2d 852 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
PartiesAnthony LIPARI, plaintiff-respondent, v. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, appellant, Scott Kinhackl, et al., defendants-respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Burns, Russo, Tamigi & Reardon, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (John T. Pieret of counsel), for appellant.

Anthony J. LoPresti, Garden City, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent.

Peter E. Finning (McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. [Patrick M. Murphy], of counsel), for defendants-respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of Oyster Bay appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered December 11, 2012, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the defendant Town of Oyster Bay by the defendants Scott Kinhackl, Michelle Kinhackl, and Antoinette Sarro, and the plaintiff Anthony Lipari, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motion of the defendant Town of Oyster Bay for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he tripped and fell on a sidewalk slab raised by tree roots in front of a premises in the defendant Town of Oyster Bay. At the time of the accident, the defendants Scott Kinhackl, Michelle Kinhackl, and Antoinette Sarro were the owners and residents of the subject premises.

“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” ( Forbes v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 1106, 1107, 926 N.Y.S.2d 309;see Poirier v. City of Schenectady, 85 N.Y.2d 310, 624 N.Y.S.2d 555, 648 N.E.2d 1318;Hanover Ins. Co. v. Town of Pawling, 94 A.D.3d 1055, 943 N.Y.S.2d 152;Abano v. Suffolk County Community Coll., 66 A.D.3d 719, 719, 887 N.Y.S.2d 200;Katsoudas v. City of New York, 29 A.D.3d 740, 741, 815 N.Y.S.2d 243). Where such a municipality establishes that it lacked prior written notice of an alleged defect, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of the two recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement ( see Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 726, 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873;Hanover Ins. Co. v. Town of Pawling, 94 A.D.3d at 1056, 943 N.Y.S.2d 152;Kiszenik v. Town of Huntington, 70 A.D.3d 1007, 1007–1008, 895 N.Y.S.2d 208).“The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality's affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality's special use of the property” ( Forbes v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d at 1107, 926 N.Y.S.2d 309;see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104;Hanover Ins. Co. v. Town of Pawling, 94 A.D.3d at 1056, 943 N.Y.S.2d 152;Filaski–Fitzgerald v. Town of Huntington, 18 A.D.3d 603, 604, 795 N.Y.S.2d 614).

In the complaint, the plaintiff did not allege that he complied with the prior written notice provisions contained in Town Law § 65–a(2) or section 160–1 of the Code of the Town of Oyster Bay. Instead, the plaintiff alleged in his notice of claim, complaint, and bill of particulars that the Town affirmatively created the subject dangerous condition through various specified acts of negligence. [T]he prima facie showing which a defendant must make on a motion for summary judgment is governed by the allegations of liability made by the plaintiff in the pleadings” ( Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 76 A.D.3d 210, 214, 905 N.Y.S.2d 226;see Miller v. Village of E. Hampton, ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
13 cases
  • Sessa v. Peconic Bay Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 29, 2021
    ...the plaintiff in the pleadings" ( Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 76 A.D.3d 210, 214, 905 N.Y.S.2d 226 ; see Lipari v. Town of Oyster Bay, 116 A.D.3d 927, 928, 983 N.Y.S.2d 852 ; see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d at 325, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ). Here, neither the......
  • Wolin v. Town of N. Hempstead
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 10, 2015
    ...of Hempstead, 124 A.D.3d at 721 ; Velho v. Village of Sleepy Hollow, 119 A.D.3d at 552, 987 N.Y.S.2d 879 ; Lipari v. Town of Oyster Bay, 116 A.D.3d 927, 928–929, 983 N.Y.S.2d 852 ; Smith v. City of Mount Vernon, 101 A.D.3d 847, 848–849, 955 N.Y.S.2d 635 ).The plaintiff's remaining contentio......
  • Monaco v. Hodosky
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 1, 2015
    ...facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, must demonstrate that it did not create the condition (see Lipari v. Town of Oyster Bay, 116 A.D.3d 927, 928, 983 N.Y.S.2d 852 ). The Village failed to do so. The conflicting testimony submitted by the Village presented triable issues of fac......
  • Rodriguez v. Klein
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 23, 2014
  • Get Started for Free