| Richards v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00210 [80 AD3d 594] |
| January 11, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dale Richards, Appellant, v Incorporated Village of RockvilleCentre, Respondent. |
—[*1] Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey, Pender & Koehler, P.C., Syosset, N.Y. (Anton Piotroskiof counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), entered June 24, 2009, which granted the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she stumbled and fell in a parking lot owned by thedefendant, Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre, as a result of stepping into a pothole. After issuewas joined, the Village moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
On its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the Village made a prima facieshowing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing evidence that it lacked prior writtennotice of the allegedly dangerous condition, as required by Village Law § 6-628 (see Jason v Town of N. Hempstead, 61AD3d 936 [2009]; Smith v Village ofRockville Ctr., 57 AD3d 649, 650 [2008]). While the plaintiff attempted to raise a triableissue of fact as to the applicability of the so-called "affirmative negligence exception" to the statutoryrule requiring prior written notice, she failed to provide any evidence tending to show that workperformed by a Village repair crew immediately resulted in a pothole or any other surface defect in thearea in question (Yarborough v City of NewYork, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; Oboler v City of New York, 8 NY3d 888, 889-890 [2007]; cf. SanMarco v Village/Town of Mt. Kisco, 16 NY3d 111 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Village's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.