| Oliveri v Village of Greenport |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02092 [93 AD3d 773] |
| March 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Angela Oliveri, Respondent, v Village of Greenport,Appellant. |
—[*1] Law Offices of Solomon & Herrera, PLLC, Levittown, N.Y. (Daniel J. Herrera and Susan A.Rubin of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by itsbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated April4, 2011, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped on a raised tree grate located in astrip of cobblestone between a sidewalk and a roadway in the Village of Greenport. The plaintiffthen commenced this action against the Village to recover damages for personal injuries. TheVillage moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, among other things,that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect, as required by Village Law§ 6-628. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied theVillage's motion for summary judgment.
The Village established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bysubmitting evidence that it lacked prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition, asrequired by Village Law § 6-628 (see Richards v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr., 80 AD3d 594,594 [2011]; Krausch v Incorporated Vil.of Shoreham, 87 AD3d 715, 716 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise atriable issue of fact as to whether the Village received prior written notice of that condition, or asto whether one of the exceptions to the prior written notice requirement applied (see Yarborough v City of New York,10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; Kiszenikv Town of Huntington, 70 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2010]; Healy v Village of Patchogue, 28 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]). Contraryto the plaintiff's contention, the prior written notice provision of Village Law § 6-628 isapplicable to the location of her accident (see Holmes v Town of Oyster Bay, 82 AD3d 1047, 1048-1049[2011]; Malone v Town of Southold, 303 AD2d 651, 652 [2003]; see generally Groninger v Village ofMamaroneck, 17 NY3d 125, 129 [2011]; Woodson v City of New York, 93NY2d 936, 937 [1999]).
In light of the foregoing, the Village's remaining contention need not be reached.[*2]
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted theVillage's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Leventhal,Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.