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.
Candace SOBOTKA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Paul ZIMMERMAN, et al., Defendants, Town of Wheatfield and Town of Wheatfield Highway Department, Defendants–Appellants.
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she fell into an unguarded, uncapped drain pipe on property owned by defendants Paul Zimmerman and Elizabeth Zimmerman. Defendant Town of Wheatfield (Town) maintained a right-of-way over that portion of the Zimmermans' property where the uncapped drain pipe was located, and defendant Town of Wheatfield Highway Department (Highway Department) maintained the drain pipes. Although the Town and the Highway Department conceded that they are responsible for the repair of an uncovered drain pipe, they nevertheless moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them on the ground that they did not have prior written notice of the defective drain pipe. Supreme Court properly denied the motion.
Pursuant to section 92–1 of the Code of the Town of Wheatfield (Town Code), prior written notice of an alleged defect to “any highway, bridge, street, sidewalk, crosswalk or culvert” is required as a condition precedent to the commencement of a civil action. Similarly, Town Law § 65–a (1) and (2) require prior written notice of defects to a highway, bridge, culvert, or sidewalk in order to maintain a civil action for injuries occurring as a result of such a defect. Here, however, the drain pipe does not constitute a street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk or crosswalk, and thus it is not encompassed by either section 92–1 of the Town Code or Town Law § 65–a (1) or (2). “It is axiomatic that prior written notice laws are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed” (Windsor Ct. Assoc. v. Village of New Paltz, 27 A.D.3d 814, 815, 809 N.Y.S.2d 477; see generally Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 473–474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104). Prior written notice of the defective drain pipe therefore was not required.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 182, 07-01344
Decided: February 08, 2008
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)