D'Antuono v. Village of Saugerties
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Mercure, J.P.
*1332We affirm. It is undisputed that the Village did not receive written notice of the dangerous condition, as required by Village Law § 6-628. Plaintiffs argue, however, that questions of fact exist regarding the applicability of the two exceptions to the statutory rule, which “is obviated where the plaintiff demonstrates that the municipality ‘created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence’ or that a ‘special use’ conferred a benefit on the municipality” (Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck, 17 NY3d 125, 127-128 [2011], quoting Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Amabile v. City of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Poirier v. City of SchenectadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Groninger v. Village of MamaroneckNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- San Marco v. Village/Town of Mount KiscoNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- ITT Hartford Insurance v. Village of OssiningAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.