Majority
The County established, prima facie, that it lacked actual notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 , 324 [1986]). However, under the particular circumstances of this case, including the County’s submission of evidence of multiple prior accidents at the same location, the County failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition (see Hyde v County of Rensselaer, 51 NY2d 927 , 929 [1980]; Kane v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 64 AD3d 544 , 545 [2009]; Sideris v Town of Huntington, 240 AD2d 652 [1997]). Since the County failed to meet its prima facie burden, its motion should have been denied without considering the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 , 853 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the County’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 833
- Hyde v. County of Rensselaer 51 NY2d 927 at 929 p. 833
- Kane v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority 64 AD3d 544 at 545 p. 833
- Sideris v. Town of Huntington 240 AD2d 652 p. 833
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center 64 NY2d 851 at 853 p. 833