Monaco v. Hodosky

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Monaco v. Hodosky, 2015 NY Slip Op 2735, 127 A.D.3d 705, 7 N.Y.S.3d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
• Decision Date: 01 April 2015
• Docket Number: 2014-05083, Index No. 2282/11.
• Parties: Joy MONACO, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. Gary T. HODOSKY, et al., defendants-respondents, Village of Bellport, appellant.

127 A.D.3d 705

7 N.Y.S.3d 197

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02735

Joy MONACO, et al., plaintiffs-respondents

v. Gary T. HODOSKY, et al., defendants-respondentsVillage of Bellport, appellant.

2014-05083, Index No. 2282/11.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

April 1, 2015.

Siler & Ingber, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Maria Nanis of counsel), for appellant.

Keegan & Keegan, Ross & Rosner, LLP, Patchogue, N.Y. (Daniel C. Ross of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Village of Bellport appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated March 26, 2014, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Joy Monaco (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly tripped and fell over a defect in a sidewalk abutting premises owned by the defendants Gary T. Hodosky and Catherine A. Hodosky (hereinafter together the Hodosky defendants) in the defendant Village of Bellport. The plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced this action against the Hodosky defendants and the Village. The complaint alleged that the Village had created the subject defect by negligently patching a prior defect in that part of the sidewalk. The Village moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, contending that it did not have prior written notice of the defect and that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition.

In support of the motion, the Village submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of Gary T. Hodosky, who testified that the Village made repairs to the subject area of the sidewalk approximately one year before the alleged accident, and that after the repairs were made, that area of the sidewalk was in good condition. He also testified at his deposition that at the time of the accident, the accident site was in the same condition as when the repair was first made. The Village also submitted transcripts of the General Municipal Law § 50–h hearing testimony and the depositions of the plaintiffs, wherein they testified that the plaintiff fell due to a height difference of four to six inches between two concrete slabs. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

A municipality that has enacted a prior written notice statute may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defective condition in a sidewalk unless it either has received written notice of the defect or an exception to the written notice requirement applies (see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104 ; Simon v. Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 116 A.D.3d 692, 983 N.Y.S.2d 308 ; Zielinski v. City of Mount Vernon, 115 A.D.3d 946, 982 N.Y.S.2d 531 ). Recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement exist where the municipality has created the defect through its affirmative negligence, or where a special use of the property has conferred a special benefit upon the municipality (see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d at 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104 ; Avellino v. City of New York, 107 A.D.3d 836, 968 N.Y.S.2d 114 ; Miller v. Village of E. Hampton, 98 A.D.3d 1007, 951 N.Y.S.2d 171 ). The affirmative negligence exception is limited to work done by a municipality that immediately results in the existence of a...