Avellino v. City of New York, 107 A.D.3d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Avellino v. City of New York, 107 A.D.3d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2014–2016 · …the only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality at p. 837 ✓
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Dutka v. Odierno (nyappdiv, 2016-12-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dutka v. Odierno
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality” (Avellino v City of New York, 107 AD3d 836, 837 [2013]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 314-315 [1995]; Miller v Village of E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abreu-Lopez v. Incorporated Village of Freeport
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies” (Cimino v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 883, 884 [2013]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 473-474 [1999]; Kelley v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 138 AD3d 931 [2016]; Fisher v Town of N. Hempstead, 134 AD3d 670, 671 [2015]). “ ‘The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written n…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simon v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality” (Avellino v City of New York, 107 AD3d 836, 837 [2013]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 314-315 [1995]; Miller v Village of E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simon v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality” (Avellino v City of New York, 107 AD3d 836, 837 [2013]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474 ; Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 314-315 [1995]; Miller v Village of E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tallerico v. City of Peekskill
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The only exception relevant here is if the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence (see Donnellan v City of New York, 112 AD3d 780 [2013]; Keating v Town of Oyster Bay, 111 AD3d 604, 605 [2013]; Avellino v City of New York, 107 AD3d 836, 837 [2013]; Masotto v Village of Lindenhurst, 100 AD3d 718, 719 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tallerico v. City of Peekskill
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The only exception relevant here is if the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence (see Donnellan v City of New York, 112 AD3d 780 [2013]; Keating v Town of Oyster Bay, 111 AD3d 604, 605 [2013]; Avellino v City of New York, 107 AD3d 836, 837 [2013]; Masotto v Village of Lindenhurst, 100 AD3d 718, 719 [2012]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Keating v. Town of Oyster Bay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Avellino v City of New York, 107 AD3d 836, 837 [2013]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Keating v. Town of Oyster Bay
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Avellino v City of New York, 107 AD3d 836, 837 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see" Kelley v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
We reverse. “ ‘Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained street or sidewalk unless it has received written notice of the defect, or an exception to the written notice requirement applies’ ” (Fisher v Town of N. Hempstead, 134 AD3d 670, 671 [2015], quoting Cimino v County of Nassau, 105 AD3d 883, 884 [2013]; see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 473-474 [1999]). “‘The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situation…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Andrew Avellino
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 19, 2013.
107 A.D.3d 836
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated December 2, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Where a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries arising from a dangerous roadway condition unless it has received prior written notice of the dangerous condition, or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Miller v Village of E. Hampton, 98 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]; De La Reguera v City of Mount Vernon, 74 AD3d 1127, 1127 [2010]; Schleif v City of New York, [*837] 60 AD3d 926, 927-928 [2009]). The only recognized exceptions to the statutory prior written notice requirement involve situations in which the municipality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence, or where a special use confers a benefit upon the municipality (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d at 474; Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 314-315 [1995]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendant, the City of New York, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that it did not receive prior written notice of the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries (see Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck, 17 NY3d 125, 129 [2011]; cf. Bruni v City of New York, 2 NY3d 319 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City actually was provided with timely prior written notice or whether the affirmative act exception was applicable. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not address the special use exception to the prior written notice law (see Conner v City of New York, 104 AD3d 637 [2013]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.