Jacobowitz v. N.Y.C.

202 N.Y.S.3d 446

222 A.D.3d 953

Mark JACOBOWITZ, appellant,

v.CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued-September 18, 2023

December 27, 2023

James Cammarata, Oyster Bay, NY (Patricia Rooney of counsel), for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Ingrid R. Gustafson, Eric Lee, and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, WILLIAM G. FORD, LOURDES Μ. VENTURA, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kevin J. Kerrigan, J.), dated February 27, 2020. The order granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs,

On April 27, 2011, the plaintiff was operating a motorcycle on a public street in the City of New York, when the motorcycle’s front wheel entered a pothole, and the plaintiff lost control and fell, sustaining injuries. In 2011, the plaintiff filed a no tice of claim, alleging that the plaintiff "struck a pot hole" and was "ejected from the vehicle." The notice of claim did not identify a theory of liability. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the City’s negligence in allowing the pothole to develop and in falling to repair it. In his bill of particulars, the plaintiff, alleged, in addition to the claim that the City failed to repair the pothole, for the first time, that the City was negligent in "creating … a trap like condition" (emphasis added).

In August 2019, after the note of issue was filed, the City moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had not received prior written notice of the defective condition of the street. In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the City had created a dangerous condition that satisfied the affirmative negligence exception to the prior written notice requirement of the Pothole Law (see Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-201[c][2]). In an order dated February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the City did not have prior written notice of the pothole and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the affirmative negligence exception applied. Accordingly, the court granted that branch of the City’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

[] We affirm the grant of summary judgment, but on different grounds (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Greene, 210 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 178 N.Y.S.3d 778; Louis-Juste v. Fisher Park Lane Owner, LLC, 205 A.D.3d 703, 704, 165 N.Y.S.3d 738). "Where, as here, a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, it may not be subjected to liability for injuries caused by a dangerous condition which comes within the ambit of the law unless it has received prior written notice of the alleged defect or dangerous condition, or an exception to the prior written notice requirement applies" (Congero v. City of Glen Cove, 193 A.D.3d 679, 681, 141 N.Y.S.3d 909; see Smith v. City of New York, 210 A.D.3d 53, 61-62, 175 N.Y.S.3d 529 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "Where the City establishes that it lacked prior written notice under the Pothole Law, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule" (Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 726, 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873; see Morales 'v. Village of Ossining, 218 A.D.3d 460, 460-461, 193 N.Y.S.3d 131), including "where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence" (Smith v. City of New York, 210 A.D.3d at 62, 175 N.Y.S.3d 529 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Amabile v. City of Buffato, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104). Here, the City established, prima facie, that it lacked prior written notice of the dangerous condition through the deposition of a City Department of Transportation record searcher (see Nieves v. City of New York, 216 A.D.8d 800, 801, 189 N.Y.S.8d 568; Schaum v, City of New York, 216 A.D.3d 691, 692,187 N.Y.S.3d 108).

[2, 3] In Opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a...