| Cuebas v City of Yonkers |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05718 [97 AD3d 779] |
| July 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Victoria Cuebas et al., Respondents, v City of Yonkers,Appellant. |
—[*1] Solomon Rosengarten, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered January 18,2012, 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 defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law sinceit demonstrated that it did not receive prior written notice of the icy condition complained of inthe roadway where the injured plaintiff fell, as required by the Charter of the City of Yonkers§ C24-11 (see Pena v City ofYonkers, 82 AD3d 728 [2011]), and that it did not create the dangerous conditionthrough an affirmative act of negligence (cf. Braver v Village of Cedarhurst, 94 AD3d 933 [2012]).
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Amabile v City ofBuffalo, 93 NY2d 471 [1999]; Lichtman v Village of Kiryas Joel, 90 AD3d 1001 [2011]). Theinjured plaintiff's affidavit, submitted in opposition, presented feigned issues of fact designed toavoid the consequences of her earlier testimony, taken pursuant to General Municipal Law§ 50-h, and thus was insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion (see Hunt v Meyers, 63 AD3d 685,685-686 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.P., Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.