Forbes v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Forbes v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 18× by 16 distinct cases, 2012–2022 · 2 courts→ Stable · …the only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality's affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality's special use of the property at p. 1107 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 17× by 15 distinct cases, 2012–2018 · 2 courts↓ Fading · …a municipality that has adopted a 'prior written notice law' cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies at p. 1107 ✓ Topic ↗
66 citation events (66 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nigro v. Village of Mamaroneck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The plaintiff appeals. " A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies'" ( Sola v Village of Great Neck Plaza , 115 AD3d 661, 662 , quoting Forbes v City of New York , 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady , 85 NY2d 310 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cruzate v. Town of Islip
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
"A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies" ( Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gibbs v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2018 · confidence medium
"The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality's affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality's special use of the property" ( Forbes v City of New York , 85 AD3d at 1107; see Amabile v City of Buffalo , 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Breest v. Long Island Railroad
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Lipari v Town of Oyster Bay, 116 AD3d 927, 927-928 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marciano v. Village of Rockville Centre
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Palka v Village of Ossining, 120 AD3d 641, 642 [2014]). *762 Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged icy or uneven condition in the parking lot where the plaintiff slipped and fell (see Peretz v Village of …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McManus v. Klein
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a 'prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Sola v Village of Great Neck Plaza, 115 AD3d 661 , 662 [2014], quoting Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Town of Smithtown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a dangerous condition which comes within the ambit of the law unless it has received prior written notice of the alleged defect or dangerous condition, or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies” (Maya v Town of Hempstead, 127 AD3d 1146, 1148 [2015]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Lahens v Town of Hempstead, 132 AD3d 954 [2015]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Factor v. Town of Islip
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a prior written notice law cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Abano v Suffolk County Community Coll., 66 AD3d 719, 719 [2009]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pipitone v. Mineola Realty Associates
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Co. v Town of Pawling, 94 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2012]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Peretz v. Village of Great Neck Plaza
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Sola v Village of Great Neck Plaza, 115 AD3d 661 , 662 [2014], quoting Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Peretz v. Village of Great Neck Plaza
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Sola v Village of Great Neck Plaza, 115 AD3d 661 , 662 [2014], quoting Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mahabir v. Suffolk County Water Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Co. v Town of Pawling, 94 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2012]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wolin v. Town of North Hempstead
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has enacted a prior written notice statute may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a defective condition in a sidewalk unless it either has received written notice of the defect or an exception to the written notice requirement applies” (Monaco v Hodosky, 127 AD3d 705, 706 [2015]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Barnes v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 120 AD3d 528, 529 [2014]; Simon v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 116 AD3d 692 , 692 [2014]). “ ‘The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement a…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeVita v. Town of Brookhaven
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Masotto v Village of Lindenhurst, 100 AD3d 718 [2012]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Agard v. City of White Plains
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donadio v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals has recognized two exceptions to this rule: (1) *853 where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence; and (2) where a special use confers a special benefit upon the locality (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; see also Albano v Suffolk County, 99 AD3d at 742 ; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Abano v Suffolk County Community Coll., 66 AD3d at 719 ; Katsoudas v City of New York, 29 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gonzalez v. Town of Hempstead
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Craig v. Town of Richmond
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing that it did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition of the roadway as required by its local law (see Hume v Town of Jerusalem, 114 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2014]; Benson v City of Tonawanda, 114 AD3d 1262, 1263 [2014]) and, indeed, plaintiff does not dispute the absence of prior written notice (see Sola v Village of Great Neck Plaza, 115 AD3d 661, 662 [2014]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Craig v. Town of Richmond
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing that it did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous or defective condition of the roadway as required by its local law (see Hume v Town of Jerusalem, 114 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2014]; Benson v City of Tonawanda, 114 AD3d 1262, 1263 [2014]) and, indeed, plaintiff does not dispute the absence of prior written notice (see Sola v Village of Great Neck Plaza, 115 AD3d 661, 662 [2014]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perez v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perez v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lipari v. Town of Oyster Bay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lipari v. Town of Oyster Bay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sola v. Village of Great Neck Plaza
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sola v. Village of Great Neck Plaza
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keating v. Town of Oyster Bay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Co. v Town of Pawling, 94 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2012]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Abano v Suffolk County Community Coll., 66 AD3d 719, 719 [2009]; Katsoudas v City of New York, 29 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keating v. Town of Oyster Bay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Co. v Town of Pawling, 94 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2012]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Abano v Suffolk County Community Coll., 66 AD3d 719, 719 [2009]; Katsoudas v City of New York, 29 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Long v. City of Mount Vernon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Long v. City of Mount Vernon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Betz v. Town of Huntington
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Betz v. Town of Huntington
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cimino v. County of Nassau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, the County established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition as required by the Administrative Code of the County of Nassau § 12-4.0 (e) (see Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Spanos v Town of Clarkstown, 81 AD3d 711 [2011]), and that it did not make the repairs to Merrick Road which allegedly constituted the defective condition (cf Braver v Village of Cedarhurst, 94 AD3d at 934 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cimino v. County of Nassau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, the County established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition as required by the Administrative Code of the County of Nassau § 12-4.0 (e) (see Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Spanos v Town of Clarkstown, 81 AD3d 711 [2011]), and that it did not make the repairs to Merrick Road which allegedly constituted the defective condition (cf Braver v Village of Cedarhurst, 94 AD3d at 934 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Masotto v. Village of Lindenhurst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Masotto v. Village of Lindenhurst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Albano v. Suffolk County
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Albano v. Suffolk County
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Hanover Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burwell v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Accordingly, contrary to the City’s contention, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing evidence that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition of the fire hydrant, as required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York (cf. Daniels v City of New York, 91 AD3d 699, 700-701 [2012]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Marshall v City of New York, 52 AD3d 586 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burwell v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Accordingly, contrary to the City’s contention, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing evidence that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition of the fire hydrant, as required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York (cf. Daniels v City of New York, 91 AD3d 699, 700-701 [2012]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Marshall v City of New York, 52 AD3d 586 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hanover Insurance v. Town of Pawling (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A municipality that has adopted a ‘prior written notice law’ cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies” (Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Abano v Suffolk County Community Coll., 66 AD3d 719 [2009]; Katsoudas v City of New York, 29 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Levy v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Here, the City defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing evidence that they did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition as required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2011]; Marshall v City of New York, 52 AD3d 586 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. County of Suffolk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Although written notice would not be required if the defendants created the condition by an affirmative act of negligence (id. at 279; see Kiszenik v Town of Huntington, 70 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2010]), the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ repair work immediately resulted in a pothole or other hazardous condition at the site of the injured plaintiffs accident (see Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889-890 [2007]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d 110…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Judith Forbes
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 28, 2011.
85 A.D.3d 1106
Cited by 49 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the[*1107] plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sherman, J.), dated September 30, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped and fell as a result of a defective condition on a sidewalk in Brooklyn. A municipality that has adopted a “prior written notice law” cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent the requisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies (see Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Abano v Suffolk County Community Coll., 66 AD3d 719 [2009]; Katsoudas v City of New York, 29 AD3d 740, 741 [2006]). It is undisputed that the defendant City of New York never received prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The only two recognized exceptions to a prior written notice requirement are the municipality’s affirmative creation of a defect or where the defect is created by the municipality’s special use of the property (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Filaski-Fitzgerald v Town of Huntington, 18 AD3d 603, 604 [2005]). Moreover, the “ ‘affirmative negligence exception . . . [is] limited to work by the [municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition’ ” (Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007], quoting Bielecki v City of New York, 14 AD3d 301, 301 [2005]).

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition as required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Almodovar v City of New York, 240 AD2d 523 [1997]; Zinno v City of New York, 160 AD2d 795 [1990]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether either of the recognized exceptions to the prior written notice requirement applies.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Lowenthal v Theodore H. Heidrich Realty Corp., 304 AD2d 725 [2003]; Harvey v Monteforte, 292 AD2d 420 [2002]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.