| Abano v Suffolk County Community Coll. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07363 [66 AD3d 719] |
| October 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carleen Abano, Jr., Appellant, v Suffolk CountyCommunity College et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Diana T. Bishop of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated November 20, 2008, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a defective walkwayon the Selden Campus of Suffolk County Community College. A municipality that has adopted a"prior written notice law" cannot be held liable for a defect within the scope of the law absent therequisite written notice, unless an exception to the requirement applies (see Poirier v City ofSchenectady, 85 NY2d 310 [1995]; Wilkie v Town of Huntington, 29 AD3d 898 [2006]; Katsoudas v City of New York, 29AD3d 740, 741 [2006]). The only two exceptions recognized by the Court of Appeals arethe municipality's affirmative creation of the defect and its special use of the property (seeAmabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 473 [1999]; Filaski-Fitzgerald v Town of Huntington, 18 AD3d 603, 604[2005]).
The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstratingthat they did not have prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that purportedlycaused the plaintiff's fall, as required by the Suffolk County Charter (see Suffolk CountyCharter § C8-2 [A]; Delgado vCounty of Suffolk, 40 AD3d 575 [2007]; Healy v Village of Patchogue, 28 AD3d 519 [2006]; Greenbergv McLaughlin, 242 AD2d 603 [1997]). In opposition to that showing, the plaintiff failed toraise a triable issue of fact or establish that either of the recognized exceptions to written noticeapply in this case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.