Opinion
2013-05-8
Kathleen EISENHAUER, appellant, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., respondents.
Paris & Chaikin, PLLC (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Jillian Rosen], of counsel), for appellant. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Tauster of counsel; M.P. Smith on the brief), for respondents.
Paris & Chaikin, PLLC (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Jillian Rosen], of counsel), for appellant. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Tauster of counsel; M.P. Smith on the brief), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered December 16, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not have prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and that the alleged condition was located in an area subject to the prior written notice provisions of Nassau County Administrative Code § 12–4.0(e) ( see Albano v. Suffolk County, 99 A.D.3d 741, 742, 952 N.Y.S.2d 245;Bryan v. City of Peekskill, 74 A.D.3d 1115, 1115, 902 N.Y.S.2d 419;DeLuca v. County of Nassau, 207 A.D.2d 428, 615 N.Y.S.2d 741). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Groninger v. Village of Mamaroneck, 17 N.Y.3d 125, 129, 927 N.Y.S.2d 304, 950 N.E.2d 908;Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104;Albano v. Suffolk County, 99 A.D.3d at 742, 952 N.Y.S.2d 245). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff's contention that the application of the prior written notice requirement to the area of the accident is inconsistent with General Municipal Law § 50–e(4) was raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court ( see Lugo v. Austin–Forest Assoc., 99 A.D.3d 865, 867, 952 N.Y.S.2d 603;Kennedy v. Arif, 82 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 919 N.Y.S.2d 362;Whitehead v. City of New York, 79 A.D.3d 858, 861, 913 N.Y.S.2d 697).
The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.