Smith v. City of Corning
| Decision Date | 30 June 1961 |
| Citation | 217 N.Y.S.2d 149,14 A.D.2d 27 |
| Parties | Ethel SMITH, Appellant, v. CITY OF CORNING, N. Y., Respondent, and other defendants. Ethel SMITH, Appellant, v. CITY OF CORNING, N. Y., Defendant, John Bonady, and another, executors, etc. and others, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harry Treinin, Corning, for appellant.
W. Earle Costello, Corning, for respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, HALPERN and McCLUSKY, JJ.
Plaintiff was injured when she fell on a sidewalk in the City of Corning, New York. She has sued the City of Corning, the owners of the property in front of which she fell and the lessee of the property. There is no question that a very dangerous condition of the sidewalk caused her to fall. This was at the site of a water shutoff pipe.
The trial jistice dismissed the complaint as against all defendants after all defendants had rested, on the theory that no cause had been made out against any defendant as a matter of law. The plaintiff has appealed. The dismissals were erroneous and reversal and a new trial are required.
We shall discuss first the liability of the defendant City of Corning. At the time of this accident and prior thereto, Section 30 of Title 3 of the Charter of the City of Corning provided:
'The city shall not be liable for any injury caused by such highways, streets, alleys, sidewalks or crosswalks being out of repair * * * unless actual notice of the unsafe and dangerous condition thereof has been given to the mayor or the city clerk of said city a reasonable time before the happening of such injury.' (L.1943, ch. 710, part 3, tit. 11, § 160.) part 3, titl 11, § 160.)
It is conceded by the plaintiff that no notice was given to the City prior to the happening of the accident. However, notice was served thereafter in accordance with the terms of Section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Of course, this latter notice would not be sufficient unless the City was making a special use of the portion of the sidewalk where the accident occurred or had caused or maintained such dangerous condition.
We said in Filsno v. City of Rochester, 10 A.D.2d 663, 196 N.Y.S.2d 311, 312:
There is no doubt that the City was making a special use of the portion of the sidewalk where the accident occurred although the time when the shutoff pipe and the adjacent sidewalk was repaired is in some doubt. There is little question, however, that the City participated in the repair therein and there is also no question that the City was at least in partial control of the shutoff pipe. The superintendent of public works of the City testified that the City controlled the water lines from the main into the shutoff pipe and that the owners controlled it from the pipe into the house. Thus, we have the City and the onwers each in partial control of this shutoff pipe and liable for its proper and safe maintenance. Therefore, the notice which was served after the accident was proper and sufficient.
There was a question of fact for the jury as to the control or partial control of the shutoff pipe and the surrounding sidewalk and its special use by the City. These matters should have been submitted.
As to the defendant owners, the rule is much the same. In Gordon v. City of Albany, 278 App.Div. 233, at page 235, 104 N.Y.S.2d 736, at page 739, the Court said:
'It is true that an abutting owner, although ordinarily not liable for the maintenance of a sidewalk in front of his premises, may become liable if there is some feature in the construction of a sidewalk, not connected with the public use,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers v. City and County of Honolulu
...Co. v. Thompson, 94 Ga.App. 331, 94 S.E.2d 516; Clair v. City of Kansas City, 180 Kan. 409, 304 P.2d 468; Smith v. City of Corning, New York, 14 App.Div.2d 27, 217 N.Y.S.2d 149; Rollins v. Satterfield, 254 S.W.2d 925 (Ky.1953). Where a sidewalk is specially constructed for the benefit of th......
-
Mass v. CGJG Realty Corp.
...(liable defendants breached duty to maintain special use valves and valve covers on City street); Smith v. City of Corning, 14 A.D.2d27, 29 217 N.Y.S.2d 149, 151-152 (4th Dep't 1961) (water shutoff valve considered special use and landowner liable). Plaintiff stresses that Con Ed's James O'......
-
Rochette v. Town of Newburgh
...v. City of New York, 33 A.D.2d 175, 178, 305 N.Y.S.2d 650, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 594, 313 N.Y.S.2d 408, 261 N.E.2d 406; Smith v. City of Corning, 14 A.D.2d 27, 217 N.Y.S.2d 149; Mortimer v. East Side Sav. Bank, 251 App.Div. 97, 295 N.Y.S. 695; Lusk v. Peck, 132 App.Div. 426, 116 N.Y.S. 1051, affd......
-
Rooney v. City of Long Beach
...because it enabled the jury to find (1) that the valve constituted a special use for the benefit of the city (see Smith v. City of Corning, 14 A.D.2d 27, 217 N.Y.S.2d 149) and (2) that the defective condition which caused the accident had been created by the improper installation of the val......