Legal Opinion
Zimmerman v. City of Niagara Falls
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 4, 1985PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion, treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), was properly granted. Plaintiffs failed to submit competent proof to contradict the city’s assertion that it had not received the statutorily required prior written notice of the alleged defect (see, Waring v City of Saratoga Springs, 92 AD2d 1080). Plaintiffs argue that the city had actual knowledge of the defect and is thus estopped from denying lack of notice. That argument lacks merit (see, Drzewiecki v City of Buffalo, 51 AD2d 870).…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Drzewiecki v. City of BuffaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Donnelly v. Village of PerryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Waring v. City of Saratoga SpringsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
3Cited by8 opinions
- Guadagno v. City of Niagara FallsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Gorman v. Town of HuntingtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Piscione v. County of OneidaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Krysinski v. City of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Lyndaker v. Sherwin Williams, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.