From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dileo v. Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 2008
55 A.D.3d 867 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-05502.

October 28, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated May 8, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Brodsky Peck, Harrison, N.Y. (Maria C. Corrao of counsel), for appellant.

Penino Moynihan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Vincent J. Aceste and Audrey D. Zwolski of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller and Eng, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured after falling over an allegedly defective storm drain at an intersection in the Town/Village of Harrison. The plaintiff claimed that there was also an inoperable streetlight at that location. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it had not received prior written notice of the allegedly defective storm drain as required by the Town/Village of Harrison Code, art I, § 32-1. The Supreme Court granted the motion. We affirm.

The evidence submitted by the defendant established, prima facie, that the defendant did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly defective storm drain and/or the surrounding pavement ( see Town/Village of Harrison Code, art I, § 32-1; General Municipal Law § 50-e; Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474; Boddie v City of New Rochelle, 233 AD2d 284; see also Patti v Town of N Hempstead, 23 AD3d 362, 363; Betzold v Town of Babylon, 18 AD3d 787). The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant received such prior written notice or whether an exception to the prior written notice requirement applied ( see Patti v Town of N. Hempstead, 23 AD3d at 363; Betzwold v Town of Babylon, 18 AD3d at 787; Boddie v City of New Rochelle, 233 AD2d at 284). Further, the Town did not have a duty to provide street lighting for the area where the plaintiff allegedly fell ( see Greenberg v McLaughlin, 242 AD2d 603, 603-604; Abbott v County of Nassau, 223 AD2d 662; Bauer v Town of Hempstead, 143 AD2d 793, 794).


Summaries of

Dileo v. Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 2008
55 A.D.3d 867 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Dileo v. Harrison

Case Details

Full title:KAREN DILEO, Appellant, v. TOWN/VILLAGE OF HARRISON, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 28, 2008

Citations

55 A.D.3d 867 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8289
866 N.Y.S.2d 742

Citing Cases

Martinez v. Welsback Elec. Corp.

The duty to maintain existing streetlights is similarly limited to those situations in which illumination is…

Janus v. Bern-Stan-Zyg Dev. Corp.

Rather, the instant matter is more akin to the facts and circumstances of Barnes v. City of Mount Vernon…