From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shaw v. City of Auburn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 17, 1982
91 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

December 17, 1982

Appeal from the Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Boomer, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs have recovered a verdict for damages sustained as a result of an accident occurring when plaintiff Helen Shaw tripped on a depressed manhole located in an Auburn city street and fractured a bone in her foot. There was no evidence that the defect was caused by the municipality and thus, compliance with the prior written notice provision of section 157 of the Auburn Municipal Code was an essential element of plaintiffs' causes of action. Since they failed to either plead or prove compliance with the code's notice provisions, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted (see Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 N.Y.2d 362, 365; MacMullen v City of Middletown, 187 N.Y. 37; Fullerton v City of Schenectady, 285 App. Div. 545, affd 309 N.Y. 701, app dsmd 350 U.S. 980; Deacon v City of Buffalo, 29 A.D.2d 620; see, also, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3015, subd [a], p 58).


Summaries of

Shaw v. City of Auburn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 17, 1982
91 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Shaw v. City of Auburn

Case Details

Full title:HELEN SHAW et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF AUBURN, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 17, 1982

Citations

91 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Zortman v. City of Niagara Falls

Plaintiff failed to plead or prove compliance with the written notice provision contained in the city charter…

Meltzer v. City of New York

0 [d] [2], now § 7-201 [c] [2]). We agree with the IAS court that the minor street defect was an…