From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a decayed tree limb that had fallen from a tree alongside a street in the City of Niagara Falls. Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant City of Niagara Falls (City) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with a City Charter provision requiring prior written notice of a defective condition of a tree. We reject plaintiff's contention that the City's alleged failure to detect and remove the decayed tree limb before it fell constitutes affirmative negligence, rendering the City's prior written notice provision inapplicable ( see, Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 74 N.Y.2d 917, 918). We agree with plaintiff, however, that, to the extent that section 5.14 of the City Charter purports to impose a prior written notice requirement for a defective condition of a tree, it is invalid ( see, Walker v Town of Hempstead, 84 N.Y.2d 360, 367-368). We reject the City's argument that, because the tree is located within the right-of-way for the street, it should be treated as part of the street for which prior written notice of a defective condition is properly required. Because prior written notice statutes are in derogation of the common law, they have been narrowly construed to refer to actual physical defects in the surface of a street or sidewalk ( see, Doremus v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 18 N.Y.2d 362, 365-366; Torres v Galvin, 189 A.D.2d 870, 871; see also, Fitzpatrick v Barone, 215 A.D.2d 351). This is not a case where a tree limb obstructed the sidewalk ( cf., Monteleone v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, supra; see also, Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85 N.Y.2d 310).

There is a question of fact whether the City had constructive notice of the decayed tree limb ( see, Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41 N.Y.2d 446; cf., Ivancic v Olmstead, 66 N.Y.2d 349, rearg denied 66 N.Y.2d 1036, cert denied 476 U.S. 1117).


Summaries of

Hughes v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Hughes v. City of Niagara Falls

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS S. HUGHES, Appellant, v. CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 8, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 609

Citing Cases

Taylor v. County of Monroe

Although defendant established by proof in admissible form that it had no actual notice of the dangerous…

O'Brien v. City of Schenectady

Thus, defendant did not create the dangerous condition. Like the planting of a tree followed by the failure…