Marona v. Incorporated Village of Mamaroneck

Decision Date11 April 1994
Citation609 N.Y.S.2d 938,203 A.D.2d 337
PartiesFlorinda MARONA, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, Respondent-Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Gary P. Field, Huntington, for appellants-respondents.

J. Russell Clune, P.C., Village Atty., Harrison (Richard D. Bentzen and Edward A. Frey, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before BALLETTA, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, RITTER and ALTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered May 20, 1992, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On June 30, 1989, the plaintiff, Florinda Marona, allegedly tripped and fell while walking across a center island median separating two lanes of motor vehicle traffic on Phillip Park Road in the Village of Mamaroneck (hereinafter the Village). It is alleged that the median, which was part of the roadway owned by the Village, was in a defective condition because the concrete curb surrounding it had a one-inch gap all the way around where it was joined with the macadam. The plaintiff allegedly caught her high heel in this one inch gap.

In its affirmative defense, the Village alleged lack of prior written notice as required by the Village Code. The Village then moved for summary judgment based on the undisputed fact that no prior written notice of the alleged defect was ever filed.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the affirmative defense of lack of prior written notice. They argued that no prior written notice was required because the Village had created the dangerous condition, and because the Village derived a special benefit from revenues generated by parking meters installed around the center median. The Supreme Court denied the respective motions and we now affirm.

Compliance with local laws requiring prior written notice of a defect or dangerous condition on public ways is normally mandated in order to hold a municipal body liable for injuries to persons due to nonfeasance (see, Bryant v. City of Newburgh, 193 A.D.2d 773, 598 N.Y.S.2d 77). Exceptions to this requirement exist where the municipality has acted affirmatively to create the dangerous condition (see, Kiernan v. Thompson, 73 N.Y.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bosch v. Inc. Vill. of Island Park
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 1, 2017
    ...Defendant County. See, Vise v. County of Suffolk, 207 A.D.2d 341 (2d. Dept. 1994); see also, Marona v. Incorporated Vil. of Mamaroneck, 203 A.D.2d 337, (2d. Dept. 1994); Poirier v. City of Schenectady, 201 A.D.2d 845, (3d. Dept. 1994); Waters v. Town of Hempstead, 166 A.D.2d 584, (2d. Dept.......
  • Vise v. County of Suffolk
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 1, 1994
    ...benefit of the Town (see, Giacotto v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra, at 164, 566 N.Y.S.2d 450; see also, Marona v. Incorporated Vil. of Mamaroneck, 203 A.D.2d 337, 609 N.Y.S.2d 938; Poirier v. City of Schenectady, 201 A.D.2d 845, 607 N.Y.S.2d 986; Waters v. Town of Hempstead, 166 A.D.2d 58......
  • Sloan v. Village of Hempstead
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 22, 1996
    ...While no prior written notice of defect is necessary where there is an affirmative act of negligence (see, Marona v. Incorporated Vil. of Mamaroneck, 203 A.D.2d 337, 609 N.Y.S.2d 938; Tyschak v. Incorporated Vil. of Westbury, supra ), the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegation that the Vill......
  • Roser v. City of Kingston
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 25, 1998
    ...was acting in a governmental and not a proprietary capacity in maintaining the parking meters (see, Marona v. Incorporated Vil. of Mamaroneck, 203 A.D.2d 337, 338, 609 N.Y.S.2d 938; compare, Knapp v. Fasbender, 1 N.Y.2d 212, 226, 151 N.Y.S.2d 668, 134 N.E.2d Second, in the absence of prior ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT