Salierno v. City of Mount Vernon

Decision Date26 June 2013
CitationSalierno v. City of Mount Vernon, 107 A.D.3d 971, 966 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
PartiesFlorence SALIERNO, respondent, v. CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, et al., appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Nichelle A. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, Mount Vernon, N.Y. (Hina Sherwani of counsel), for appellants.

Calano & Culhane, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Thomas A. Culhane of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), entered September 17, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it 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, 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104;Carlucci v. Village of Scarsdale, 104 A.D.3d 797, 961 N.Y.S.2d 318;Miller v. Village of E. Hampton, 98 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 951 N.Y.S.2d 171). “Recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement exist where the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a special benefit upon it” ( Miller v. Village of E. Hampton, 98 A.D.3d at 1008, 951 N.Y.S.2d 171;see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d at 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104;Braver v. Village of Cedarhurst, 94 A.D.3d 933, 934, 942 N.Y.S.2d 178). If one of these recognized exceptions applies, the written notice requirement is obviated ( see Groninger v. Village of Mamaroneck, 17 N.Y.3d 125, 127, 927 N.Y.S.2d 304, 950 N.E.2d 908).

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the defendant City of Mount Vernon did not have prior written notice of, or create, the defectiveor dangerous condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff's accident ( see Romano v. Vil. of Mamaroneck, 100 A.D.3d 854, 954 N.Y.S.2d 593;Cuebas v. City of Yonkers, 97 A.D.3d 779, 780, 948 N.Y.S.2d 688). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the City of Mount Vernon affirmatively created the dangerous condition that caused her accident ( see Laracuente v. City of New York, 104 A.D.3d 822, ...

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
17 cases
  • Nerey v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 2, 2016
    ...remaining contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (see Salierno v. City of Mount Vernon, 107 A.D.3d 971, 972, 966 N.Y.S.2d 901 ...
  • Endless Ocean, LLC v. Twomey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 8, 2014
    ...arguments that relied upon these documents were improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Salierno v. City of Mount Vernon, 107 A.D.3d 971, 972, 966 N.Y.S.2d 901). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint should have been ...
  • Rose v. Levine
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 26, 2013
    ... ... Island, N.Y., for appellant.Shapiro Gettinger & Waldinger, LLP, Mount Kisco, N.Y. (Mona D. Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.WILLIAM F ... City of Rochester, 14 A.D.2d 13, 15, 217 N.Y.S.2d 113,affd.11 N.Y.2d 759, 226 ... ...
  • Shields v. Brown
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 26, 2013
  • Get Started for Free