Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael LADO and Robin Lado, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CITY OF ROME, Defendant-Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of the City of Rome (defendant) to dismiss the complaint against it. Michael Lado (plaintiff) was injured while proceeding across North Street in the City of Rome when he tripped over a water valve vault, the cover of which was missing. It is undisputed that defendant did not have prior written notice of the unsafe, dangerous or defective condition as required by City of Rome Charter Laws, Title A, Section 176. There are two exceptions to the notice requirement, “namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence (see, Kiernan v. Thompson, 73 N.Y.2d 840, 842, 537 N.Y.S.2d 122, 534 N.E.2d 39) and where a ‘special use’ confers a special benefit upon the locality (see, Poirier v. City of Schenectady, [85 N.Y.2d 310,] 314-315 [624 N.Y.S.2d 555, 648 N.E.2d 1318]; D'Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454 [450 N.Y.S.2d 149, 435 N.E.2d 366])” (Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104). Plaintiffs do not allege that defendant affirmatively created the defect, and the special use exception does not apply because the water valve vault cover was maintained by defendant as part of its duty to maintain safe streets (see, ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v. Village of Ossining, 257 A.D.2d 606, 606-607, 684 N.Y.S.2d 258; see also, Poirier v. City of Schenectady, supra, at 314-315, 624 N.Y.S.2d 555, 648 N.E.2d 1318; Barnes v. City of Mt. Vernon, 245 A.D.2d 407, 666 N.Y.S.2d 206).
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant City of Rome dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)