Christy v. City of Niagara Falls
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered February 16, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment.
It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was thrown from his motorcycle upon hitting a pothole. Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying its cross motion. Defendant municipality met its initial burden by establishing that it lacked prior written notice under the applicable pothole law, and plaintiff thus had the burden to demonstrate, as relevant here, that defendant “affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence . . . ‘that immediately result[ed] in the existence of a dangerous condition’ ” (Yarborough v City of New York, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; see Lastowski v V.S. Virkler & Son, Inc., 64 AD3d 1159, 1161 [2009]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant “performed the negligent pothole repair” without a tack coat over brick and steel rails (Yarborough, 10 NY3d at 728), we note that the state
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.