From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ovisinak v. Town of Southold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted October 18, 2000.

November 13, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 12, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Harvey A. Arnoff, Riverhead, N.Y., for appellants.

John T. Pellini, New York, N.Y. (Robert C. McMahon of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant. Pursuant to Town Law § 65-a(2), prior written notice is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against the defendant arising from a sidewalk defect (see, Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471; Sloan v. Village of Hempstead, 223 A.D.2d 632; Strauss v. Town of Oyster Bay, 201 A.D.2d 553; West v. Village of Mamaroneck, 172 A.D.2d 827). In moving for summary judgment, the defendant met its initial burden of demonstrating that it had not received prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to their contention that written notice was not required because the defendant created the alleged defect by negligently constructing the sidewalk (see, Amabile v. City of Buffalo, supra; Sloan v. Village of Hempstead, supra; Strauss v. Town of Oyster Bay, supra; Gormley v. County of Nassau, 150 A.D.2d 342). The plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegation that the defendant negligently constructed the sidewalk, made in the affirmation of their attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts, was insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion (see, Cattani v. Incorporated Vil. of Ocean Beach, 252 A.D.2d 533; Brooks v. Village of Babylon, 251 A.D.2d 526; Hirsch v. Morgan Stanley Co., 239 A.D.2d 466).


Summaries of

Ovisinak v. Town of Southold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Ovisinak v. Town of Southold

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY OVISINAK, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 884

Citing Cases

Silburn v. City of Poughkeepsie

Pursuant to Poughkeepsie City Charter § 15.03, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the City of Poughkeepsie…

Mollin v. County of Nassau

The plaintiffs' speculative and conclusory allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact…