SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEWVORK COUNTY OF NASSAU - PART 22 Present: HON. WILLIAM R. LaMARCA Justice PAULINE CHAWLA and GURMIT CHAWLA, Motion Sequence # 001 Submitted February 17, 2006 Plaintiffs, -against- INDEX NO: 16617/05 WILLIAM G. HODGSON, JR., HAMILTON SHA THE VILLAGE OF NEW HVDE PARK, and THE TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD Defendants. The following papers were read on these motions: Notice of Motion... I... I...... VILLAGE' s Memorandum of Law... Plaintiff' s Affirmation in Opposition... HODGSON Affirmation in Opposition... Affirmation in Reply to Plaintiff... Affirmation in Reply to HODGSON... Requested Relief Defendant, THE VILLAGE OF NEW HYDE PARK (hereinafter referred to as the VILLAGE") moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 93212, granting it summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against the VILLAGE on the grounds
that it did not have prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous condition which caused plaintiff' s injury. An Affidavit of Service reflects that all defendants were duly served with the instant motion on December 16, 2005, but co-defendants HAMILTON SHAY and the TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD submit no papers in opposition. Plaintiffs PAULINE CHAWLA and GURMIT CHAWLA, and co-defendant, WilLIAM G. HODGSON, JR., oppose the motion which is determined as follows: Background Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries sustained by PAULINE CHAWLA, and a loss of service claim by GURMIT CHAWLA, from an alleged trip and fall accident that occurred on September 1, 2004, at approximately 5:30 PM, on a raised sidewalk on Terrace Boulevard in the VILLAGE OF NEW HYDE PARK. The complaint alleges that all of the defendants own the sidewalk that abuts the property located at 406 Terrace Boulevard in the VILLAGE. At her depostion, PAULINE CHAWLA testified that on the evening of the accident, she was jogging at a medium pace when she tripped and fell on a portion of raised sidewalk at the subject location which was near a tree. She further testified that, although she regularly jogged, she had never taken that route before and when she fell, she "fell forward. Both my feet were in the air and my hands, and I fell face first". She testified that she suffered cuts and bruises to her face, hands, shoulder and knee and later learned at the Emergency Room of North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, that she had fractured the middle finger of her right hand. She claims that, as a result of her fall, she stil has pain when bending her finger but that she no longer receives medical care for the injury and can do all of her usual activities. She stated that after the accident, she made no complaints about the sidewalk and never
reported the accident to the police. In support of its motion to dismiss, the VILLAGE asserts that this action cannot be maintained against it because it did not have prior written notice of the alleged defective condition. The VILLAGE relies on the affidavits of Patrick Farrell, the Clerk for the VilLAGE, and JAMES J. McClOAT, the Superintendent of the Department of Public Works for the VILLAGE, who assert that, after conducting a search of the records maintained by the VILLAGE, there are no records of prior written notice of any defects to the sidewalk in front of 406 Terrace Boulevard, and that no construction work and/or repairs were performed at the subject location to the sidewalk or the tree. It is the VILLAGE' s position that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not receive prior written notice of any defect at the subject location and because it did not perform any work or direct that work be done at the subject location and that it did not create the defective condition. It urges that the complaint should be dismissed as against the VILLAGE together with all cross-claims. In opposition to the motion, both the plaintiffs and HODGSON state that the motion is premature as no discovery has been conducted and that the motion should be denied pursuant to CPLR 93212(f). The Law Prior written notice of an alleged defect is a necessary prerequisite to imposing liability upon a municipality for an allegedly defective and/or dangerous sidewalk condition (Frullo v Incorporated Vilage of Rockvile Centre 274 AD2d 499, 711 NYS2d 185 (2 Dept. 2000); Brooks v Vilage of Babylon 251 AD2d 526, 674 NYS2d 726 (2 Dept. 1998).
Prior notification laws are a valid exercise of legislative authority. Such laws reflect a legislative judgment to modify the duty of care owed by a locality in order to address the vexing problem of municipal street and sidewalk liability. General Municipal Law 9 50-e(4), the authorizing statutory provision, specifically allows for the enactment of prior notification statutes and requires compliance with such laws. Thus a locality may avoid liability for injuries sustained as a result of defects or hazardous conditions on its sidewalks if it has not been notified in writing of the existence of the defect or hazard at a specific location. Neither actual nor constructive notice may override the statutory requirement of prior written notice of a side walk defect. The legislature has made plain its judgment that a municipality should be protected from liability in these circumstances until it has received written notice of the defect or obstruction. Amabile v City of Buffalo 93 NY2d 471 693 NYS2d 77, 715 NE2d 104 (C.A. 1999). There are 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 or where a "special use" confers a special benefit upon the locality. Amabile v City of Buffalo, supra. In sum, neither actual nor constructive notice of a given defect is sufficient to overcome the requirement of prior written notice (Amabile v City of Buffalo, supra; Caramanica v City of New Rochelle, 268 AD2d 496, 702 NYS2d 351(2nd Dept. 2000)). In order for a municipality to be liable for a condition where no prior written notice was given, a plaintiff must set forth competent evidence that the municipality affirmatively created the alleged offending condition in issue (Walker v Incorporated Vilage of Northport 304 AD2d 823, 757 NYS2d 801 (2 Dept. 2003); Monteleone v Inc. Vilage of
Floral Park, 74 NY2d 917 550 NYS2d 257, 594 NE2d 459 (C.A. 1989). A municipality makes a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it neither received the requisite prior written notice of the alleged defect nor bore responsibilty for the creation of the alleged defect (Amabile v City of Buffalo, supra). The Appellate Division has repeatedly held that "a determination of summary judgment cannot be avoided by a claimed need for discovery unless some evidentiary basis is offered to suggest that discovery wil lead to relevant evidence Lambert v Bracco, 18 AD 3d 619, 795 NYS2d 662 (2 Dept. 2005). Mere speculation that further discovery would uncover evidence to defeat the motion is no basis to postpone the decision on the motion. Marshall v Colvin Motor Parts of Long Island, 140 AD2d 673, 528 NYS2d 1007 Dept. 1988); see also, Weltman v RWP Group, Inc. 232 AD2d 550, 648 NYS2d 970 Dept. 1996). Whether the VILLAGE received prior written notice of an alleged sidewalk condition is a matter of public record. Delaying a motion for summary judgment is only proper where the further discovery that is sought is in the exclusive possession of the moving party. Scofield v Trustees of Union College 267 AD2d 651, 699 NYS2d 570 Dept. 1999). It is well settled on a motion for summary judgment that, after movant has made a prima facie showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the other party must establish the existence of material facts of sufficient import to create a triable issue of fact. Bare allegations are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact. Shaw v Time- Life Records 38 NY2d 201 379 NYS2d 390, 341 NE2d 817 (C.A. 1975).
Discussion After a careful reading of the submission herein, it is the Court's judgment that the VILLAGE has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that the opposing submissions are insufficient to defeat the instant motion. Plaintiffs have offered no evidence whatsoever to suggest that discovery may lead to evidence that would refute the sworn statement of the VILLAGE Clerk that the VILLAGE never received prior written notice ofthe alleged defect. Similarly, plaintiffs did not offer any evidence that discovery may lead to evidence that would refute the sworn statement of the VILLAGE' Superintendent of Public Works that the VILLAGE did not perform any construction or repairs to the subject sidewalk at any time prior to the accident. Nor has HODGSON presented any evidence or even alleged that the VILLAGE created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence or made special use of the subject sidewalk. It is therefore Conclusion ORDERED, that the VILLAGE' S motion for summary judgment is granted and the complaint and all cross-claims are dismissed as against the VILLAGE OF NEW HYDE PARK; and it is further ORDERED, that the caption shall henceforth read as follows:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU PAULINE CHAWLA and GURMIT CHAWLA, Plaintiffs -against- INDEX NO: 16617/05 WILLIAM G. HODGSON, JR., HAMILTON SHAY and THE TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, Defendants. and it is further ORDERED, that the parties shall appear for a Preliminary Conference on June 27 2006, at 2:30 P. M. in Differentiated Case Management Part (DCM) at 100 Supreme Court Drive, Mineola, New York, to schedule all discovery proceedings. A copy ofthis order shall be served on all parties and on DCM Case Coordinator Richard Kotowski. There wil be no adjournments, except by formal application pursuant to 22 NYCRR 9125. All further requested relief not specifically granted is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: May 22 2006 WILLIA R. LaMARCA, J. EN1'EREO w.' 25 U COUNTY - E.RK' S QFFICE.; COui'i \ 'I vi-
TO: Hirsch, Britt & Mose, Esqs. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 470 Garden City, NY 11530 Morris, Duffy, Alonso & Faley, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Vilage of New Hyde Park Two Rector Street, 22 Floor New York, NY 10006 Kelly, Ropde & Kelly, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Wiliam S. Hodgson, Jr. 330 Old Country Road, Suite 305 Mineola, NY 11501 Town of North Hempstead Defendant Pro Se 220 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Hamilton Shay Defendant Pro Se 406 Terrace Boulevard New Hyde Park, NY 11040 chawla-hodgson shay,newydepark, townofnorthhempstead,#01/sumjudg