From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casino v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1991
176 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

September 23, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion, and reinstating the complaint, and (2) deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the plaintiffs' cross motion which was to dismiss the defendant's fourth affirmative defense, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Anthony Del Casino, a police officer for the defendant City of New Rochelle, alleged that he was injured as the result of the negligence of the City in failing to properly maintain a footbridge. In their amended verified bill of particulars, the plaintiffs alleged that the City violated certain provisions of the Charter of the City of New Rochelle and Highway Law §§ 230 and 251, in its maintenance of the bridge. In view of these allegations, we find that the complaint states a cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e, which is applicable to cases pending after January 1, 1987 (see, L 1990, ch 762; cf., Magness v. Glandorf, 171 A.D.2d 652; Campbell v Lorenzo's Pizza Parlor, 172 A.D.2d 478). The City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is therefore denied.

The plaintiffs contend that the court erred in denying their cross motion to dismiss the City's four affirmative defenses. The fourth affirmative defense, which alleged that the action was barred on public policy grounds, should be dismissed, as the defense is not applicable to a statutory cause of action under General Municipal Law § 205-e. The City withdrew so much of its third affirmative defense as alleged that this action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. We find that there are triable issues of fact with respect to the City's remaining affirmative defenses which preclude their dismissal. Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Casino v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1991
176 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Casino v. City of New Rochelle

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY DEL CASINO et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 23, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 514

Citing Cases

St. Jacques v. City of New York

The same risk of injury would have been present whether or not the alleged statutory violations occurred and…

Maisch v. City of New York

Similarly, in Buckley v City of New York ( 176 A.D.2d 207, 208-209) we held that since the statute applied…