New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Village Law § 6-628 (2026)
Liability of village in certain actions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 6-628 Liability of village in certain actions. No civil action shall be maintained against the village for damages or injuries to person or property sustained in consequence of any street, highway, bridge, culvert, sidewalk or crosswalk being defective, out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed or for damages or injuries to person or property sustained solely in consequence of the existence of snow or ice upon any sidewalk, crosswalk, street, highway, bridge or culvert unless written notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition or of the existence of the snow or ice, relating to the particular place, was actually given to the village clerk and there was a failure or neglect within a reasonable time after the receipt of such notice to repair or remove the defect, danger or obstruction complained of, or to cause the snow or ice to be removed, or the place otherwise made reasonably safe.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 120
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Groninger v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 950 N.E.2d 908 (NY 2011).
Groninger v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 950 N.E.2d 908 (NY 2011). “The Village moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, asserting that it had neither received prior written notice of the defect ( see CPLR 9804; Village Law § 6-628) nor created the icy condition.”
San Marco v. Vill./Town of Mount Kisco, 944 N.E.2d 1098 (NY 2010). “In response, the Village asserted that Village Law § 6-628 and Village of Mount Kisco Code § 93-47 shielded it from liability in the absence of prior written notice.”
Palka v. Vill. of Ossining, 120 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “On its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, the Village made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing evidence that it lacked prior written notice of the allegedly…”
Oliveri v. Vill. of Greenport, 93 A.D.3d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “The plaintiff then commenced this action against the Village to recover damages for personal injuries. The Village moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, among other things, that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect, as required…”
San Marco v. Vill./Town of Mount Kisco, 57 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “After joinder of issue, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had no prior written notice of any hazardous condition at the parking lot as required by Village Law § 6-628 and Village of Mount Kisco Code § 93-47.”
Conlon v. Vill. of Pleasantville, 146 A.D.2d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “The plaintiff contends that files in the office of the village superintendent of water in connection with a "sidewalk reconstruction program”, which indicated there was some damage to the sidewalk, constitute actual notice to the village within the meaning of the Village Law §…”
Mollahan v. Vill. of Port Washington North, 153 A.D.2d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “As an affirmative defense in its answer, the village pleaded that it had never received actual written notice of the alleged defect prior to the plaintiffs accident, as required by Village Law § 6-628. Subsequently, the village moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint…”
Loiaconi v. Vill. of Tarrytown, 36 A.D.3d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “The Village moved to dismiss the lawsuit based upon the plaintiffs failure to comply with, inter alia, Village Law § 6-628 which requires that the Village receive prior written notice as a condition precedent to maintaining an action against the Village based upon, inter alia, a…”
Torres v. Galvin, 189 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “The Village moved for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it on the ground that there had been no prior written notice of the condition pursuant to Village Law § 6-628. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the motion, finding that Village Law § 6-628 did not apply…”
Krausch v. Inc. Vill. of Shoreham, 87 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “The Village moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had received no prior written notice of the allegedly hazardous condition, as was required by Village Law § 6-628. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied the…”
Rosenthal v. Vill. of Quogue, 205 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “The Village moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it had not received written notice of the alleged defect (see, Village Law § 6-628). The plaintiffs opposed the motion, by providing evidence to support their claim that the defect was affirmatively created by the…”
Lowenthal v. Theodore H. Heidrich Realty Corp., 304 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “In particular, the plaintiffs concede, that the Village did not receive prior notice of the alleged defect in the sidewalk, as required by Village Law § 6-628 and CPLR 9804. Nonetheless, they claim that summary judgment should not have been granted to the Village, as there is an…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.