From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilmore v. Village

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 15, 2008
47 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2006-11532.

January 15, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated October 23, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendant Village of Hempstead for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Dell Little, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), for appellant.

Garry Garry, New York, N.Y. (William J. Garry of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Lifson and Covello, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On its motion, the defendant Village of Hempstead made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The Village submitted evidence establishing that it lacked prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous sidewalk condition that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall ( see Village Law § 6-628; CPLR 9804; Koehler v Incorporated Vil. of Lindenhurst, 42 AD3d 438; Horan v Christ Episcopal Church, 227 AD2d 592). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village received prior written notice of the condition. The Village also established that the plaintiff had a duty to maintain the area where she fell, and was responsible for any injuries resulting from her breach of that duty ( see Village of Hempstead Code § 116-1 [A], [B]; § 116-2; see also Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 453; Willis v Parker, 225 NY 159, 164-165). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village affirmatively created the condition or whether the condition constituted a special use enjoyed by the Village ( see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474; Merskey-Zeger v Village of Mamaroneck, 181 AD2d 761, 762).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Village's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.


Summaries of

Gilmore v. Village

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 15, 2008
47 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Gilmore v. Village

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA GILMORE, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF HEMPSTEAD, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 15, 2008

Citations

47 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 226
850 N.Y.S.2d 168

Citing Cases

Digregorio v. Fleet Bank of N.Y

We affirm. A municipality that has enacted a prior written notice law is excused from liability absent proof…

Demarco v. Town of Oyster Bay

The Town made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it was…