Parthesius v. Town of Huntington

210 A.D.3d 789

178 N.Y.S.3d 140

Damon PARTHESIUS, respondent,

v.TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, appellant.

2020–06911

Index No. 604186/19

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

Argued—October 13, 2022

November 9, 2022

Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady LLP, Garden City, NY (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick and Brian W. McElhenny of counsel), for appellant.

Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, NY (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (George Nolan, J.), dated July 20, 2020, as amended July 28, 2020. The order dated July 20, 2020, as amended July 28, 2020, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The notice of appeal from an order dated July 28, 2020, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the order dated July 20, 2020, as amended July 28, 2020 (see CPLR 5512[a] ).

ORDERED that the order dated July 20, 2020, as amended July 28, 2020, is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

On the evening of October 9, 2018, the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk condition which was located within a municipal parking lot. There was a patch of asphalt in the concrete sidewalk, and it was not flush with the abutting slab of concrete. The plaintiff also alleged that a lamppost near the accident site was not functioning and that the area was not properly illuminated. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, the Town of Huntington, to recover damages for personal injuries that he allegedly sustained as a result of his fall. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that it did not have prior written notice of the uneven sidewalk condition and that it had no duty to illuminate the area where the accident occurred. The Supreme Court denied the motion in an order dated July 20, 2020, as amended July 28, 2020. The defendant appeals.

"Prior written notice of a defective condition is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a municipality where, as here, there is a local law requiring such notice" ( Schiller v. Town of Ramapo, 202 A.D.3d 1022, 1022, 164 N.Y.S.3d 146 ; see Code of the Town of Huntington § 174–3; Coventry v. Town of Huntington, 165 A.D.3d 750, 751–752, 85 N.Y.S.3d 573 ). Here, in support of its motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, affidavits of its employees who searched the relevant records covering a five-year period prior to the date of the accident, and found that neither the Town Clerk nor the Town Superintendent of Highways had received prior written notice of any dangerous or defective condition at the accident site. The defendant thus established, prima facie, that it did not have prior written notice of the alleged uneven sidewalk condition (see Schiller v. Town of Ramapo, 202 A.D.3d at 1023, 164 N.Y.S.3d 146 ; Defilippo v. City of Glen Cove, 178 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 112 N.Y.S.3d 586 ; Coventry v. Town of Huntington, 165 A.D.3d at 752, 85 N.Y.S.3d 573 ; Walker v. County of Nassau, 147 A.D.3d 806, 807, 46 N.Y.S.3d 647 ). The defendant also established, prima facie, that it had no duty to illuminate the area where the accident occurred (see Thompson v. City of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 682, 685, 578 N.Y.S.2d 507, 585 N.E.2d 819 ; Greenberg v. McLaughlin, 242 A.D.2d 603, 603–604, 662 N.Y.S.2d 100 ; Abbott v. County of Nassau, 223 A.D.2d 662, 662, 637 N.Y.S.2d 216 ; Bauer v. Town of Hempstead, 143 A.D.2d 793, 794, 533 N.Y.S.2d 342 ).

The Court of Appeals "has recognized only two exceptions to the statutory rule requiring prior written notice, namely, where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence and where a ‘special use’ confers a special benefit upon the locality" ( Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471, 474, 693 N.Y.S.2d 77, 715 N.E.2d 104 [citation omitted]; see Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 726, 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873 ; Puzhayeva v. City of New York, 151 A.D.3d 988, 990, 58 N.Y.S.3d 92 ). Only the affirmative negligence exception is implicated in this case, and it " ‘is limited to work [done] by [a municipality] that immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition’ " ( Yarborough v. City of New York, 10 N.Y.3d at 728, 853 N.Y.S.2d 261, 882 N.E.2d 873, quoting Oboler v. City of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 832 N.Y.S.2d 871, 864 N.E.2d 1270 ; see San Marco v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 16 N.Y.3d 111, 117–118, 919 N.Y.S.2d 459, 944 N.E.2d 1098 ; Fiero v. City of New York, 190 A.D.3d 822, 824, 140 N.Y.S.3d 602 ; Puzhayeva v. City of New York, 151 A.D.3d at 990, 58 N.Y.S.3d 92 ). The defendant was not required to eliminate all...