From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zortman v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 12, 1984
101 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

April 12, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, McGowan, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without costs, defendant's motion denied, and verdict reinstated. Memorandum: The court erred in setting aside the verdict of no cause for action in favor of defendant. Plaintiff failed to plead or prove compliance with the written notice provision contained in the city charter (Niagara Falls City Charter, § 323-b), a condition precedent to bringing an action to recover for injuries incurred because of a defective or unsafe sidewalk. Additionally, plaintiff failed to establish that the condition of the sidewalk was caused by any affirmative act of the city ( Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y.2d 162, 166; Shaw v City of Auburn, 91 A.D.2d 817, affd 59 N.Y.2d 780).


Summaries of

Zortman v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 12, 1984
101 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Zortman v. City of Niagara Falls

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK J. ZORTMAN et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS…

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

Date published: Apr 12, 1984

Citations

101 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Kaempf v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiffs failed to sustain this burden and thus summary judgment should have been granted to the Town…

Gallo v. Town of Hempstead

Since the plaintiffs conceded that the town had not received prior written notice of the defect in accordance…