Legal Opinion

Bonilla v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 25, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*789The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Incorporated Village of Hempstead (hereinafter the defendant) failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issues of whether it received prior written notice of the defect and whether the defendant’s contractor created the defect through excavation at or near the location of the accident (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Zuckerman v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sanatass v. Town of North HempsteadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  2. Reiser v. Incorporated Village of Rockville CentreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  3. Jordan-Hunte v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  4. Jordan-Hunte v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API