From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Silva v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 2004
6 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-10666.

Decided April 19, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 6, 2002, which, upon the granting of the defendant's oral application before trial to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the prior written notice provision of the Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2), dismissed the complaint.

Asher Associates, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Robert J. Poblete of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs failed to provide the City of New York with prior written notice of the defect which allegedly caused the accident ( see Administrative Code § 7-201[c][2]). Actual or constructive notice does not satisfy this requirement ( see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 475-476; Poirier v. City of Schenectady, 85 N.Y.2d 310, 314; Harvey v. Monteforte, 292 A.D.2d 420, 421; Delcamp v. Village of Brocton, 270 A.D.2d 842). The plaintiffs did not plead compliance with the prior written notice provision of the Administrative Code, which was fatal to their action against the City ( see Katz v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 241, 243; David v. City of New York, 267 A.D.2d 419. Their reliance on an exception to the written notice requirement based on a condition caused by the affirmative negligence of the City is misplaced. They contend that this negligence consisted of a failure to repair a water main in an expeditious manner, and a failure to repair is not affirmative behavior necessary to establish that the City created the defective condition ( see Bruni v. City of New York, 302 A.D.2d 545, 546; cf. Kiernan v. Thompson, 73 N.Y.2d 840, 841; see generally Amabile v. City of Buffalo, supra at 474).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Silva v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 2004
6 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Silva v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:BACILIO SILVA, ET AL., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent

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

Date published: Apr 19, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 788

Citing Cases

Silva v. City of New York

April 18, 2005. Motions by the appellants (1) for leave to reargue an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme…

Marino v. County of Nassau

This demand was relevant, if at all, only to the issue of actual or constructive notice on the part of the…