From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lado v. City of Rome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 16, 2000
269 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 16, 2000

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Dismiss Pleading.

PRESENT: LAWTON, J. P., HAYES, WISNER, HURLBUTT AND SCUDDER, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant City of Rome dismissed.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of the City of Rome (defendant) to dismiss the complaint against it. Michael Lado (plaintiff) was injured while proceeding across North Street in the City of Rome when he tripped over a water valve vault, the cover of which was missing. It is undisputed that defendant did not have prior written notice of the unsafe, dangerous or defective condition as required by City of Rome Charter Laws, Title A, Section 176. There are two exceptions to the notice requirement, "namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence ( see, Kiernan v. Thompson, 73 N.Y.2d 840, 842) and where a `special use' confers a special benefit upon the locality ( see, Poirier v. City of Schenectady, [ 85 N.Y.2d 310, 314-315]; D'Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454)" ( Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 474). Plaintiffs do not allege that defendant affirmatively created the defect, and the special use exception does not apply because the water valve vault cover was maintained by defendant as part of its duty to maintain safe streets ( see, ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v. Village of Ossining, 257 A.D.2d 606, 606-607; see also, Poirier v. City of Schenectady, supra, at 314-315; Barnes v. City of Mt. Vernon, 245 A.D.2d 407).


Summaries of

Lado v. City of Rome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 16, 2000
269 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Lado v. City of Rome

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL LADO AND ROBIN LADO, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF ROME…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 16, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 327

Citing Cases

Smith v. City of Syracuse

rous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it ( cf. Pinon v. Town of Islip, 255 A.D.2d 568, 569).…

Blumberg v. City of New York

Here, it is undisputed that the manhole was used by defendant Department of Parks and Recreation to access…