defect exception in New York

2025Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for a defect within the scope of the law unless it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies ( see Amabile v City of Buffalo , 93 NY2d 471, 474 ; see also Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]).

2022Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for a defect within the scope of the law unless it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies ( see Amabile v City of Buffalo , 93 NY2d 471, 474 ).

2025There are two "recognized exceptions to the rule—that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality" ( Yarborough v City of New York , 10 NY3d 726, 728 ).

2022There are two "recognized exceptions to the rule—that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality" ( Yarborough v City of New York , 10 NY3d 726, 728 ).

2015“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 [sidewalk] unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies” (Griesbeck v County of Suffolk, 44 AD3d 618, 619 [2007]).

2010“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 roadway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies” (Griesbeck v County of Suffolk, 44 AD3d 618, 619 [2007]).

2019"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 ; see Amabile v City of Buffalo , 93 NY2d 471, 474 ; Barnes v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson , 120 AD3d 528, 529 ; Simon v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook , 116 AD3d 692 ).

2016“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 [2014]).

2019"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 ; see Amabile v City of Buffalo , 93 NY2d 471, 474 ; Barnes v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson , 120 AD3d 528, 529 ; Simon v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook , 116 AD3d 692 ).

2016“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 [2014]).

2025Works , 65 AD3d 676, 677 ; see Gold v County of Westchester , 15 AD3d 439, 440 ).

2009Under Highway Law § 139 (2), a county can enact a prior written notice statute that provides that it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained highway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Gold v County of Westchester, 15 AD3d 439, 440 [2005] ; see generally Cendales v City of New York, 25 AD3d 579 [2006] ; Field v Stubelek, 238 AD2d 467 [1997]).

2015The affirmative negligence exception is limited to work done by a municipality that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]; Methal v City of New York, 116 AD3d 743, 743-744 [2014]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d at 1107 ).

2009The prior written notice requirement will be obviated only if the plaintiff establishes that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality or that the municipality affirmatively created the defect by performing work that immediately resulted in the existence of a dangerous condition (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888 [2007]; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]).

2014However, contrary to the contention of plaintiff and the court’s determination, actual notice of a defect is not an exception to the prior written notice requirement (see Minew v City of New York, 106 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2013]; Palo v Town of Fallsburg, 101 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 862 [2013]; Rile v City of Syracuse, 56 AD3d 1270 , 1271 [2008]; Oswald v City of Niagara Falls, 13 AD3d 1155, 1157 [2004]).

2014However, contrary to the contention of plaintiff and the court’s determination, actual notice of a defect is not an exception to the prior written notice requirement (see Minew v City of New York, 106 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2013]; Palo v Town of Fallsburg, 101 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 862 [2013]; Rile v City of Syracuse, 56 AD3d 1270 , 1271 [2008]; Oswald v City of Niagara Falls, 13 AD3d 1155, 1157 [2004]).

2014However, contrary to the contention of plaintiff and the court’s determination, actual notice of a defect is not an exception to the prior written notice requirement (see Minew v City of New York, 106 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2013]; Palo v Town of Fallsburg, 101 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 862 [2013]; Rile v City of Syracuse, 56 AD3d 1270 , 1271 [2008]; Oswald v City of Niagara Falls, 13 AD3d 1155, 1157 [2004]).

2014However, contrary to the contention of plaintiff and the court’s determination, actual notice of a defect is not an exception to the prior written notice requirement (see Minew v City of New York, 106 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2013]; Palo v Town of Fallsburg, 101 AD3d 1400 , 1401 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 862 [2013]; Rile v City of Syracuse, 56 AD3d 1270 , 1271 [2008]; Oswald v City of Niagara Falls, 13 AD3d 1155, 1157 [2004]).

2014Pursuant to CPL 310.50 (2), “[i]f the jury renders a verdict which in form is not in accordance with the court’s instructions or which is otherwise legally defective, the court must explain the defect or error and must direct the jury to reconsider such verdict, to resume its deliberation for such purpose, and to render a proper verdict.” Here, however, the jury’s initial verdict was neither repugnant, erroneous nor otherwise legally defective and, therefore, there was no legal basis upon which to direct the jury to resume deliberations (cf. People v Harris, 50 AD3d 1387, 1388-1390 [2008]).

2014Pursuant to CPL 310.50 (2), “[i]f the jury renders a verdict which in form is not in accordance with the court’s instructions or which is otherwise legally defective, the court must explain the defect or error and must direct the jury to reconsider such verdict, to resume its deliberation for such purpose, and to render a proper verdict.” Here, however, the jury’s initial verdict was neither repugnant, erroneous nor otherwise legally defective and, therefore, there was no legal basis upon which to direct the jury to resume deliberations (cf. People v Harris, 50 AD3d 1387, 1388-1390 [2008]).

2009“It is axiomatic that there is no standing to complain where an alleged defect in or violation of a statute does not injure the party seeking redress” (Matter of Sarah K. 66 NY2d 223, 240 [1985]), and “[a]s a general rule, if there is no constitutional defect in the application of the statute to a litigant, he does not have standing to argue that it would be unconstitutional if applied to third parties in hypothetical situations” (County Court of Ulster Cty. v Allen, 442 US 140, 155 [1979]; see also Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555, 560 [1992]).

2006“It is axiomatic that there is no standing to complain where an alleged defect in or violation of a statute does not injure the party seeking redress” (Matter of Sarah K, 66 NY2d 223, 240 [1985], cert denied sub nom.

2019Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it may not be subjected to liability for a defect within the scope of the law unless it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies ( see Amabile v City of Buffalo , 93 NY2d 471, 474 ; Albano v Suffolk County , 99 AD3d 741, 742 ; Forbes v City of New York , 85 AD3d 1106, 1107 ).

2015“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 are the m

2015The affirmative negligence exception is limited to work done by a municipality that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition (see Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]; Methal v City of New York, 116 AD3d 743, 743-744 [2014]; Forbes v City of New York, 85 AD3d at 1107 ).

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]).

2009“It is axiomatic that there is no standing to complain where an alleged defect in or violation of a statute does not injure the party seeking redress” (Matter of Sarah K. 66 NY2d 223, 240 [1985]), and “[a]s a general rule, if there is no constitutional defect in the application of the statute to a litigant, he does not have standing to argue that it would be unconstitutional if applied to third parties in hypothetical situations” (County Court of Ulster Cty. v Allen, 442 US 140, 155 [1979]; see also Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555, 560 [1992]).

1985It is axiomatic that there is no standing to complain where an alleged defect in or violation of a statute does not injure the party seeking redress (cf. Ulster County Ct. v Allen, 442 US 140, 154-155 ).

2009Under Highway Law § 139 (2), a county can enact a prior written notice statute that provides that it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by an improperly maintained highway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Gold v County of Westchester, 15 AD3d 439, 440 [2005] ; see generally Cendales v City of New York, 25 AD3d 579 [2006] ; Field v Stubelek, 238 AD2d 467 [1997]).

2007Where, 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 roadway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Cendales v City of New York, 25 AD3d 579 [2006]; Field v Stubelek, 238 AD2d 467 [1997]; Misek-Falkoff v Village of Pleasantville, 207 AD2d 332 [1994]).

2006Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it cannot be liable for injuries caused by an improperly maintained roadway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc., 20 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; Ganzenmuller v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 18 AD3d 703, 704 [2005]).

2006Where, 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 roadway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc., 20 AD3d 511 [2005]; Ganzenmuller v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 18 AD3d 703 [2005]).

2006Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice statute, it cannot be liable for injuries caused by an improperly maintained roadway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc., 20 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; Ganzenmuller v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 18 AD3d 703, 704 [2005]).

2006Where, 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 roadway unless either it has received prior written notice of the defect or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Lopez v G&J Rudolph Inc., 20 AD3d 511 [2005]; Ganzenmuller v Incorporated Vil. of Port Jefferson, 18 AD3d 703 [2005]).

2022Given the invalid waiver, defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed is not precluded ( see People v Torres , 205 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2022]).

2022Moreover, County Court did not cure the defect in the waiver by providing sufficient instruction "ensuring that defendant understood that some appellate and collateral review survived the waiver" ( People v Figueroa , 192 AD3d at 1270 ; see People v Mayo , 195 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2021]).

2022Such a defect in a claim, or in a notice of intention to file a claim, "may not be cured by amendment" ( Matter of DeMairo v State of New York , 172 AD3d 856 , 857; see Nasir v State of New York , 41 AD3d 677, 677 ).

2016Were we to address these claims, we would find that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered with the aid of meaningful representation (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Briggs, 138 AD3d 1355, 1356 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 927 [2016]). *1318 Next, defendant argues that due to an alleged defect or error in count two of the indictment, to which he pleaded guilty, he did not receive fair notice of the charge against him, requiring that his plea be vacated.