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.
DANIEL E. BRICK, AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR DEBORAH L. HUFF AND LEWIS R. HUFF, JR., PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Deborah L. Huff and Lewis R. Huff, Jr. commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Deborah in a motor vehicle accident on one of defendant's roads. The complaint alleged that the injuries were caused by the negligence of defendant inasmuch as defendant failed to, inter alia, remedy the accumulation of snow and ice on the road. Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that it did not receive prior written notice of a dangerous or defective condition, and the burden shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of an exception to that requirement, i.e., as relevant herein, that defendant “affirmatively created” the dangerous or defective condition through an act of negligence (Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728; see Pulver v City of Fulton Dept. of Pub. Works, 113 AD3d 1066, 1066–1067). We conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his burden (see Agrusa v. Town of Liberty, 291 A.D.2d 620, 621; Gorman v. Ravesi, 256 A.D.2d 1134, 1135; cf. San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 NY3d 111, 118, rearg. denied 16 NY3d 796; see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). We reject plaintiff's further contention that it was impossible for the Huffs to comply with the prior written notice provision set forth in defendant's City Charter (see San Marco, 16 NY3d at 116).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 13–02029
Decided: October 03, 2014
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)