Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Oboler v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2020The affirmative creation exception at issue here "[is] limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition" ( Yarborough v City of New York , 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007] ; Bielecki v City of New York , 14 AD3d 301, 301-302 [1st Dept 2005]). 2020The affirmative creation exception at issue here "[is] limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition" ( Yarborough v City of New York , 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007] ; Bielecki v City of New York , 14 AD3d 301, 301-302 [1st Dept 2005]). | 6 | 6 |
Yarborough v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2020The affirmative creation exception at issue here "[is] limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition" ( Yarborough v City of New York , 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007] ; Bielecki v City of New York , 14 AD3d 301, 301-302 [1st Dept 2005]). 2020Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence (see Yarborough , 10 NY3d at 728 ), where the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies ( see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco , 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Bania v City of New York , 157 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2018]). | 2 | 4 |
Bielecki v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2020The affirmative creation exception at issue here "[is] limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition" ( Yarborough v City of New York , 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007] ; Bielecki v City of New York , 14 AD3d 301, 301-302 [1st Dept 2005]). 2020The affirmative creation exception at issue here "[is] limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition" ( Yarborough v City of New York , 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007] ; Bielecki v City of New York , 14 AD3d 301, 301-302 [1st Dept 2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Holmes v. Town of Oyster Baygreen1 sentence2015In order to hold the City liable for injuries resulting from defects in tree wells in city-owned sidewalks, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the City has received prior written notice of the defect or that an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Methal v City of New York, 116 AD3d 743 [2014]; O’Donoghue v City of New York, 100 AD3d 402 [2012]; Tucker v City of New York, 84 AD3d 640 [2011]; see also Holmes v Town of Oyster Bay, 82 AD3d 1047 [2011]). | 1 | 1 |
Methal v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2015The affirmative creation exception is “limited to work by the City that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” (Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Methal v City of New York, 116 AD3d 743 [2014]). 2015In order to hold the City liable for injuries resulting from defects in tree wells in city-owned sidewalks, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the City has received prior written notice of the defect or that an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Methal v City of New York, 116 AD3d 743 [2014]; O’Donoghue v City of New York, 100 AD3d 402 [2012]; Tucker v City of New York, 84 AD3d 640 [2011]; see also Holmes v Town of Oyster Bay, 82 AD3d 1047 [2011]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Marco v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco
green
2 sentences2020Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence (see Yarborough , 10 NY3d at 728 ), where the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies ( see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco , 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Bania v City of New York , 157 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2018]). 2020Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affirmative act of negligence (see Yarborough , 10 NY3d at 728 ), where the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies ( see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco , 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Bania v City of New York , 157 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2018]). | 4 | 2013–2020 |
Nieves v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2013Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affir mative act of negligence (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726 [2008]), where, as here, the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies (see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Roberts v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., 273 AD2d 369 [2000]; cf. Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888 [2007]; Nieves v City of New York, 87 AD3d 684 [2011]). 2013Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affir mative act of negligence (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726 [2008]), where, as here, the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies (see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Roberts v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., 273 AD2d 369 [2000]; cf. Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888 [2007]; Nieves v City of New York, 87 AD3d 684 [2011]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Roberts v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2013Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affir mative act of negligence (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726 [2008]), where, as here, the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies (see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Roberts v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., 273 AD2d 369 [2000]; cf. Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888 [2007]; Nieves v City of New York, 87 AD3d 684 [2011]). 2013Thus, while the eventual emergence of a dangerous condition as a result of wear and tear and environmental factors does not constitute an affir mative act of negligence (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726 [2008]), where, as here, the allegedly dangerous condition would have been immediately apparent, the affirmative creation exception applies (see San Marco v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 NY3d 111 [2010]; Roberts v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., 273 AD2d 369 [2000]; cf. Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888 [2007]; Nieves v City of New York, 87 AD3d 684 [2011]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Vega v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2026Under the facts presented here, the only possible exception is the affirmative creation exception, which imposes liability if a defendant creates a defect by engaging in an affirmative act of negligence that immediately results in a hazardous condition ( id. at 497-498 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Groninger v. Village of Mamaroneck
green
1 sentence2023In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of the affirmative creation exception to the prior written notice law ( see Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck , 17 NY3d at 129 ; Smith v City of New York , 210 AD3d at 70 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Smith v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2023In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of the affirmative creation exception to the prior written notice law ( see Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck , 17 NY3d at 129 ; Smith v City of New York , 210 AD3d at 70 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Tucker v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2015In order to hold the City liable for injuries resulting from defects in tree wells in city-owned sidewalks, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the City has received prior written notice of the defect or that an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Methal v City of New York, 116 AD3d 743 [2014]; O’Donoghue v City of New York, 100 AD3d 402 [2012]; Tucker v City of New York, 84 AD3d 640 [2011]; see also Holmes v Town of Oyster Bay, 82 AD3d 1047 [2011]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
O'Donoghue v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2015In order to hold the City liable for injuries resulting from defects in tree wells in city-owned sidewalks, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the City has received prior written notice of the defect or that an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]; Methal v City of New York, 116 AD3d 743 [2014]; O’Donoghue v City of New York, 100 AD3d 402 [2012]; Tucker v City of New York, 84 AD3d 640 [2011]; see also Holmes v Town of Oyster Bay, 82 AD3d 1047 [2011]). | 1 | 2015–2015 |