FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`STATE
`SUPREME
`
`OF NEW YORK
`COURT
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF SARATOGA
`
`SANDRA
`
`COULTER
`
`AND STEPHEN
`
`COULTER,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`TOWN OF MOREAU,
`AND WOODSCAPE
`ASSOCIATION
`
`11,
`
`THE MICHAELS
`GROUP,
`NORTH HOMEOWNERS'
`INC.,
`
`L.L.C.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`20178
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`OF LAW
`
`r m m -o
`
`a
`z m -
`--<
`-<
`
`2
`--
`en
`
`O
`
`BAKER
`
`FIRTH
`
`P.C.
`
`Respectfully
`
`submitted,
`
`MORRIS
`FITZGERALD
`S. McDermott
`By:
`Stephanie
`Attorneys
`for Dcfeñdant
`Street
`68 Warren
`P.O.
`Box
`2017
`Falls, NY 12801
`Glens
`745-1400
`
`(518)
`
`1 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`PRELIMINARY
`
`STATEMENT
`
`This
`
`Memorandum
`
`of
`
`Law
`
`is
`
`submitted
`
`in
`
`support
`
`of Defendant
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau's
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`Summary
`
`Judgment
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§3212
`
`diamianing
`
`the Complaint
`
`of Plaintiffs,
`
`Sandra
`
`and Stephen
`
`Coulter.
`
`As
`
`demonstrated
`
`in the
`
`instant
`
`motion,
`
`there
`
`are no
`
`triable
`
`issues
`
`of
`
`fact
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to
`
`this
`
`defendant.
`
`The
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`claims
`
`against
`
`the
`
`.Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`are
`
`of
`
`law because
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`did
`
`not
`
`receive
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`insufficient
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defective
`
`condition,
`
`as required
`
`by
`
`the
`
`town
`
`code.
`
`Additionally,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`be
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`prove
`
`that
`
`either
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`statute
`
`applies.
`
`As
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`cannot
`
`make
`
`a prima
`
`facie
`
`case
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`received
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice,
`
`the
`
`claim
`
`is not
`
`actionable
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law.
`
`The Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`seeks
`
`an Order
`
`granting
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`in favor
`
`of
`
`the Town
`
`of
`
`and
`
`Moreau
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to all
`
`claims
`
`and
`
`for
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as this Court may
`
`deem just
`
`proper.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`OF FACTS
`
`For
`
`a complete
`
`recitation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`underlying
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`this Court
`
`is respectfully
`
`referred
`
`to the Accoinganying
`
`Affirmation
`
`of Stephanie
`
`S. McDermott,
`
`Esq.
`
`and
`
`exhibits
`
`annexed
`
`thereto.
`
`Briefly,
`
`the material
`
`facts
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case
`
`are that
`
`on November
`
`25,
`
`2015,
`
`as
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Sandra
`
`Coulter
`
`crossed
`
`the
`
`lawn
`
`and
`
`entered
`
`the
`
`street
`
`at 35 Woodscape
`
`Drive
`
`in the
`
`claim
`
`based
`
`on his
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau,
`
`she allegedly
`
`tripped
`
`and
`
`fell. Mr.
`
`Coulter
`
`has
`
`a derivative
`
`wife's
`
`injuries.
`
`The
`
`town
`
`code
`
`of
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`requires
`
`that
`
`in order
`
`to maintain
`
`a claim
`
`against
`
`the Town,
`
`it must
`
`have
`
`received
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defective
`
`condition.
`
`As
`
`established
`
`in the Affidavit
`
`of Town
`
`Clerk
`
`Leann
`
`McCabe,
`
`the
`
`town
`
`did
`
`not
`
`receive
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defective
`
`condition
`
`in the
`
`road
`
`in front
`
`of 35 Woodscape
`
`Drive.
`
`2
`
`2 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`LEGAL
`
`AUTHORITY
`
`and ARGUMENT
`
`Generally,
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`is a drastic
`
`remedy
`
`that
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be
`
`granted
`
`when
`
`there
`
`is any
`
`doubt
`
`as to the
`
`existence
`
`of a triable
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`fact.
`
`S_ee, O'Brien
`
`v. Port
`
`Authority
`
`of New
`
`York
`
`and New Jersey,
`
`29 NY3d
`
`27
`
`(2017).
`
`However,
`
`summary
`
`judgmeñt
`
`"shall
`
`be
`
`granted
`
`if,
`
`upon
`
`all
`
`the
`
`papers
`
`and
`
`proof
`
`submitted,
`
`the
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action
`
`or
`
`defense
`
`shall
`
`be
`
`established
`
`law
`
`judgment
`
`in favor
`
`of
`
`party."
`
`sufficiently
`
`to warrant
`
`the
`
`court
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`in directing
`
`any
`
`See, CPLR
`
`§3212(b).
`
`"[W]here
`
`the moving
`
`party
`
`has
`
`dem0ñstrated
`
`its
`
`entitlement
`
`to
`
`summary
`
`judgmcñt,
`
`the
`
`party
`
`opposing
`
`the motion
`
`must
`
`demomtrate
`
`by
`
`admissible
`
`evidence
`
`the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`a factual
`
`issue
`
`requiring
`
`a trial
`
`of
`
`the
`
`action
`
`or
`
`tender
`
`an
`
`acceptable
`
`excuse
`
`for
`
`his
`
`failure
`
`so
`
`to
`
`do."
`
`Zuckerman
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`49 NY2d
`
`557,
`
`560
`
`(1980).
`
`"[O]nly
`
`the
`
`existeñce
`
`of a bona
`
`fide
`
`will
`
`issue
`
`raised
`
`by
`
`evidentiary
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`not
`
`one
`
`based
`
`on
`
`coñelusory
`
`or
`
`irrelevañt
`
`allegations
`
`sufñee
`
`to
`
`defeat
`
`summary
`
`judgmcñt."
`
`Rotuba
`
`Extruders.
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Cenoos,
`
`46 NY2d
`
`223,
`
`231,
`
`(1978).
`
`Where
`
`the
`
`proponent
`
`of
`
`a motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgmat
`
`proffers
`
`proof
`
`to
`
`demonstrate
`
`the
`
`lack
`
`of
`
`evidence
`
`in
`
`support
`
`of
`
`a non-movant's
`
`allegations,
`
`the
`
`burden
`
`shifts
`
`to
`
`the
`
`non-
`
`proof
`
`in
`
`support
`
`of
`
`their
`
`raise
`
`a question
`
`of
`
`fact.
`
`movant
`
`to
`
`tender
`
`sufficient
`
`allegations
`
`to
`
`Kendall
`
`v. Amica
`
`Mut.
`
`Ins. Co.,
`
`135 AD3d
`
`1202,
`
`1208,
`
`(3d Dept.
`
`2016).
`
`I. THE DEFENDANT,
`WRITTEN
`NOTICE
`
`NEW YORK,
`TOWN OF MOREAU,
`DID NOT RECEIVE
`OF THE ALLEGED
`DEFECTIVE
`CONDITION.
`
`PRIOR
`
`Where
`
`a muñicipality
`
`has
`
`enacted
`
`its
`
`own
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`statute
`
`it
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`held
`
`liable
`
`unless
`
`such
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`was
`
`actually
`
`provided.
`
`Actual
`
`or
`
`constructive
`
`notice
`
`will
`
`not
`
`suffice
`
`if
`
`not
`
`provided
`
`for
`
`in
`
`the
`
`local
`
`notice
`
`law.
`
`See,
`
`Palo
`
`v. Town
`
`of Fallsburg,
`
`101 AD3d
`
`3
`
`3 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`1400
`
`(3d Dept
`
`2012).
`
`See
`
`also,
`
`Gagnon
`
`v. City
`
`of Saratoga
`
`Surings,
`
`51 AD3d
`
`1096
`
`(3d Dept
`
`2008).
`
`Furthermore,
`
`the Third
`
`Department
`
`has
`
`also
`
`held
`
`that
`
`an action
`
`may
`
`only
`
`proceed
`
`if prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defect
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`in
`
`compliance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`local
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`law.
`
`Cook
`
`v. City
`
`of Amsterdam,
`
`173 AD3d
`
`1420,
`
`1421
`
`(3d
`
`Dept
`
`2019).
`
`Here,
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`Moreau
`
`has
`
`enacted
`
`a prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`which
`
`does
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`for
`
`actual
`
`of
`
`or
`
`statute,
`
`constructive
`
`notice
`
`when
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defect
`
`was
`
`not
`
`provided
`
`in
`
`compliance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Town's
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`law.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`referred
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Affirmation
`
`of Stephanie
`
`S. McDermott,
`
`Esq.
`
`for
`
`the
`
`full
`
`text
`
`of
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau's
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`law.
`
`In Cook
`
`v. City
`
`of Amsterdam,
`
`173 AD3d
`
`1420
`
`(3d Dept
`
`2019),
`
`the
`
`Third
`
`Department
`
`affirmed
`
`the
`
`decision
`
`of
`
`the Montgomery
`
`County
`
`Supreme
`
`Court,
`
`holding
`
`that
`
`a defendant
`
`met
`
`burden
`
`of
`
`the
`
`its
`
`initial
`
`showing
`
`absence
`
`of prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`by
`
`submitting
`
`affidavits
`
`from
`
`the
`
`custodian
`
`of
`
`records
`
`who
`
`averred
`
`that
`
`a review
`
`of
`
`the
`
`relevant
`
`records
`
`maintained
`
`by
`
`their
`
`office
`
`revealed
`
`that
`
`no
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`any
`
`defect
`
`had
`
`been
`
`received
`
`for
`
`the
`
`relevant
`
`area.
`
`Additionally,
`
`CPLR
`
`§4521
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`the
`
`lack
`
`of
`
`a record
`
`may
`
`be
`
`established
`
`by
`
`having
`
`the
`
`custodian
`
`of
`
`such
`
`record
`
`sign
`
`a statement
`
`stating
`
`that
`
`he has made
`
`a diligent
`
`search
`
`of
`
`and
`
`has
`
`found
`
`no record
`
`or entry
`
`of a specified
`
`nature.
`
`Leann
`
`McCabe,
`
`Town
`
`Clerk
`
`and Receiver
`
`of Taxes
`
`for
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau,
`
`submitted
`
`an Affidavit
`
`in Support
`
`of
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`Summary
`
`Judgment.
`
`A copy
`
`of Ms. McCabe's
`
`Affidavit
`
`in Support
`
`is attached
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"J".
`
`Consequently,
`
`the
`
`Affidavit
`
`of
`
`Leanne
`
`McCabe
`
`establishes
`
`that
`
`she
`
`is
`
`responsible
`
`mainhining
`
`any written
`
`notices
`
`of defects
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`may
`
`receive.
`
`Moreover,
`
`for
`
`she
`
`has
`
`personally
`
`conducted
`
`a thorough
`
`search
`
`of
`
`the
`
`aforementioned
`
`records
`
`and
`
`has
`
`averred
`
`that
`
`4
`
`4 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`she
`
`can
`
`find
`
`no
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`concerning
`
`defects
`
`at
`
`35 Woodscape
`
`Drive,
`
`the
`
`location
`
`complained
`
`of. Accordingly,
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`has met
`
`its burden
`
`of
`
`demonstrating
`
`a lack
`
`of
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defect
`
`in front
`
`of35
`
`Woodscape
`
`Drive.
`
`New
`
`York's
`
`Town
`
`Law
`
`also
`
`contains
`
`a prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`statute.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`referred
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Affirmation
`
`of
`
`Stephanie
`
`S. McDermott,
`
`Esq.
`
`for
`
`the
`
`full
`
`text
`
`of
`
`Town
`
`Town
`
`Law
`
`Law
`
`§65-a.
`
`§65-a
`
`provides
`
`for
`
`constructive
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`a defect.
`
`However,
`
`as
`
`articulated
`
`in
`
`Horan
`
`v. Town
`
`of
`
`Tonawanda,
`
`"[b]ecause
`
`the
`
`Legislature
`
`has
`
`not
`
`expressly
`
`prohibited
`
`defendant
`
`from
`
`enacting
`
`a more
`
`restrictive
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`than
`
`that
`
`contained
`
`in
`
`Town
`
`Law
`
`§65-a(1),
`
`defendant
`
`was
`
`entitled
`
`to do
`
`so."
`
`Horan
`
`v. Town
`
`of Tonawanda,
`
`83 AD3d
`
`1565,
`
`1566
`
`(4th
`
`Dept.
`
`2011).
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`was
`
`authorized
`
`to
`
`enact
`
`a more
`
`restrictive
`
`notice
`
`the Town
`
`the
`
`requirement
`
`that
`
`prior
`
`requireñ1eñt,
`
`did
`
`enact
`
`such
`
`a law,
`
`and
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`must
`
`be
`
`given
`
`is
`
`applicable
`
`in
`
`the
`
`iñstant
`
`case.
`
`Because
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Town's
`
`more
`
`restrictive
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`be
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`demonstrate,
`
`let
`
`alone
`
`prove,
`
`that
`
`the
`
`theory
`
`of
`
`constructive
`
`notice
`
`applies
`
`to the
`
`instant
`
`case.
`
`Affording
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`every
`
`favorable
`
`inference,
`
`and
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`Affidavit
`
`of
`
`Leann
`
`will
`
`be
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`prove
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`McCabe,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`of Moreau
`
`received
`
`notice,
`
`as required
`
`the Town
`
`by
`
`of Moreau
`
`town
`
`code,
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`the Motion
`
`for
`
`Summary
`
`Judgment
`
`should
`
`be granted.
`
`CANNOT
`PLAINTIFFS
`II.
`OF THE RECOGNIZED
`EITHER
`STATUTE
`APPLY.
`
`MEET
`
`THEIR
`EXCEPTIONS
`
`TO DEMONSTRATE
`BURDEN
`TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN
`
`THAT
`NOTICE
`
`There
`
`are only
`
`two
`
`recognized
`
`exceptions
`
`to the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement:
`
`(a)
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`condition
`
`at
`
`issue
`
`constituted
`
`a special
`
`use
`
`by
`
`conferring
`
`a special
`
`benefit
`
`to
`
`the
`
`municipality
`
`or
`
`(b)
`
`proof
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defect
`
`at
`
`issue
`
`was
`
`affirmatively,
`
`and
`
`immediately,
`
`caused
`
`by
`
`5
`
`5 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`the municipality's
`
`actions.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`have
`
`the
`
`burden
`
`to
`
`plead
`
`and
`
`prove
`
`the
`
`exception.
`
`See,
`
`Harvish
`
`v. City
`
`of Saratoga
`
`Springs,
`
`172 AD3d
`
`1503
`
`(3d Dept
`
`2019).
`
`See
`
`also,
`
`Amabile
`
`v. City
`
`of Buffalo,
`
`93 NY2d
`
`471
`
`(1999).
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`did
`
`not
`
`plead
`
`the
`
`first
`
`exception
`
`to the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`in their
`
`original
`
`complaint,
`
`or
`
`in
`
`any
`
`of
`
`their
`
`Amended
`
`Complaints.
`
`In
`
`their
`
`Amended
`
`Complaints,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`did
`
`plead
`
`the
`
`second
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement.
`
`In Amabile
`
`plaintiff
`
`a piece
`
`of what
`
`v. City
`
`of Buffalo,
`
`was
`
`injured
`
`when
`
`she
`
`tripped
`
`on
`
`was
`
`formerly
`
`a stop
`
`sign.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`argued
`
`for
`
`a constructive
`
`notice
`
`exception
`
`to the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`rule,
`
`when
`
`the
`
`defect
`
`was
`
`not
`
`known
`
`by
`
`the
`
`city
`
`but
`
`could
`
`have
`
`or
`
`should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`known
`
`by
`
`the
`
`exercise
`
`of ordinary
`
`diligence
`
`and
`
`care
`
`on its part.
`
`Amabile,
`
`93 NY2d
`
`at 474.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`rejected
`
`plaintiff's
`
`argument
`
`and maintained
`
`that
`
`the
`
`city
`
`must
`
`have
`
`prior
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`the
`
`two
`
`established
`
`exceptions
`
`applied.
`
`Id.
`
`at 476.
`
`In
`
`that must
`
`be in writing,
`
`unless
`
`one
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`case,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`assert
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`had
`
`actual
`
`and
`
`constructive
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defect
`
`in front
`
`of
`
`35 Woodscape
`
`Drive.
`
`In light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`in the
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`Code,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`Amabile
`
`Court's
`
`rejection
`
`of
`
`a constructive
`
`notice
`
`exception,
`
`Plaintifh'
`
`assertion
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`had
`
`constructive
`
`notice
`
`is
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`hold
`
`the Town
`
`of
`
`Moreau
`
`liable
`
`for
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`injuries.
`
`In
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`be unable
`
`to raise
`
`and
`
`argue
`
`the
`
`first
`
`exception
`
`to the
`
`prior
`
`any
`
`event,
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`because
`
`they
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`allege
`
`it
`
`in
`
`either
`
`the Notice
`
`of Claim
`
`or
`
`the
`
`Complaint.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to New York
`
`General
`
`Municipal
`
`Law §50-e,
`
`a plaintiff
`
`is required
`
`to submit
`
`a Notice
`
`of Claim
`
`within
`
`90
`
`days
`
`after
`
`the
`
`claim
`
`arises.
`
`In
`
`order
`
`to
`
`give
`
`sufficient
`
`notice
`
`to the
`
`municipality,
`
`the Notice
`
`of Claim
`
`must
`
`contain
`
`the
`
`time
`
`when,
`
`the
`
`place
`
`where,
`
`and
`
`the manner
`
`in which
`
`the
`
`claim
`
`arose.
`
`Id.
`
`"The
`
`test
`
`of
`
`the
`
`notice
`
`[of
`
`claim]'s
`
`sufficiency
`
`is whether
`
`it
`
`includes
`
`6
`
`6 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`5
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`information
`
`sufficient
`
`to
`
`enable
`
`the
`
`[municipality]
`
`to investigate
`
`the
`
`claim."
`
`Fontaine_v.
`
`City_o_f
`
`Amsterdam,
`
`172 AD3d
`
`1602
`
`(3d Dept
`
`2019),
`
`citing,
`
`O'Brien
`
`v. City
`
`of Syracuse,
`
`54 NY2d
`
`353,
`
`358
`
`(1981).
`
`In Scmarini
`
`v. Village
`
`of Southamp_ton,
`
`48 AD3d
`
`543
`
`(2d Dept
`
`2008),
`
`Plaintiff
`
`raised
`
`an
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`for
`
`the
`
`first
`
`time
`
`in
`
`opposition
`
`to
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`judgment
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law.
`
`The
`
`plaintiff
`
`did
`
`not
`
`raise
`
`the
`
`exception
`
`in
`
`held
`
`that
`
`improper
`
`a
`
`either
`
`the
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`claim
`
`or complaint.
`
`Id.
`
`at 544.
`
`The Court
`
`this was
`
`"...as
`
`party may
`
`not
`
`add
`
`a new
`
`theory
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`which
`
`was
`
`not
`
`included
`
`in the
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`claim."
`
`Id.
`
`Beeâüse
`
`this
`
`exception
`
`was
`
`not
`
`available
`
`to
`
`the
`
`plaintiff,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`granted
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`Because
`
`of
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`judgment.
`
`Id.
`
`at 545.
`
`The
`
`same
`
`is
`
`true
`
`for
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`in
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`case.
`
`failure
`
`to allege
`
`the
`
`first
`
`exception
`
`in the Notice
`
`of Claim
`
`or Complaint
`
`or
`
`such
`
`claim
`
`any
`
`of
`
`its Amendments,
`
`their
`
`ability
`
`to raise
`
`is lost;
`
`they may
`
`not
`
`raise
`
`this
`
`claim
`
`in
`
`opposition
`
`to the
`
`instant
`
`motion
`
`at
`
`this
`
`time
`
`and
`
`the
`
`court
`
`should
`
`not
`
`apply
`
`this
`
`exception
`
`to the
`
`instant
`
`case.
`
`Even
`
`if Plaintiffs
`
`did
`
`raise
`
`the
`
`first
`
`exception
`
`to the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement,
`
`they
`
`would
`
`be
`
`unable
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`this
`
`exception
`
`applies.
`
`The
`
`special
`
`use
`
`exception
`
`is reserved
`
`for
`
`situations
`
`where
`
`a landowner
`
`whose
`
`property
`
`abuts
`
`a public
`
`street
`
`or
`
`sidewalk
`
`derives
`
`a special
`
`a
`
`benefit
`
`from
`
`that
`
`property
`
`unrelated
`
`to
`
`the
`
`public
`
`use,
`
`and
`
`is
`
`therefore
`
`required
`
`to maintain
`
`portion
`
`of
`
`that
`
`property.
`
`_Poirier
`
`v. City
`
`of
`
`Schenectady,
`
`85 NY2d
`
`310,
`
`315
`
`(1995).
`
`As
`
`that
`
`situation
`
`is not
`
`present
`
`in the
`
`instant
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`first
`
`exception
`
`would
`
`not
`
`apply
`
`even
`
`if Plaintiffs
`
`affirmatively
`
`plead
`
`it.
`
`The New
`
`York
`
`Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`examined
`
`the
`
`second
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`in Yarborough
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`wherein
`
`plaintiff
`
`tripped
`
`and
`
`fell
`
`in
`
`a
`
`7
`
`7 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`pothole
`
`on
`
`a Brooklyn
`
`street.
`
`Yarborough
`
`v. City
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`10 NY3d
`
`726
`
`(2009).
`
`In
`
`Yarborough,
`
`plaintiff
`
`conceded
`
`that
`
`the City
`
`did
`
`not
`
`have
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice,
`
`but
`
`argued
`
`in the
`
`alternative
`
`that
`
`the
`
`second
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`rule
`
`applied,
`
`that
`
`the City
`
`had
`
`affirmatively
`
`created
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`c0ñdition.
`
`at 727.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`found
`
`that
`
`even
`
`though
`
`the
`
`City
`
`had
`
`undertaken
`
`to
`
`fix
`
`the
`
`pothole
`
`by
`
`using
`
`a patch,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`patch
`
`had
`
`deteriorated
`
`in
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`did
`
`not
`
`affirmative
`
`action
`
`time
`
`between
`
`the
`
`fix
`
`and
`
`fall,
`
`this
`
`create
`
`the
`
`necessary
`
`for
`
`the
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`to
`
`apply.
`
`The
`
`focus
`
`of
`
`the
`
`analysis
`
`being
`
`that
`
`the
`
`deterioration
`
`of
`
`the
`
`patch
`
`was
`
`caused
`
`not
`
`by
`
`the
`
`city's
`
`negligence
`
`but
`
`beesuse
`
`of
`
`environmental
`
`wear
`
`and
`
`tear
`
`over
`
`time.
`
`Il
`
`at
`
`728.
`
`Here,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`be
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`to
`
`support
`
`the
`
`application
`
`of
`
`the
`
`second
`
`exception
`
`to the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`was
`
`not
`
`created
`
`Defendant
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau.
`
`requirement
`
`because
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defect
`
`by
`
`Moreover,
`
`CPC performed
`
`the
`
`paving
`
`on
`
`the
`
`subject
`
`street,
`
`with
`
`no
`
`involvement
`
`on
`
`the
`
`part
`
`of
`
`Defendant
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau.
`
`In Hockett
`
`v. City
`
`of
`
`Ithaca,
`
`149 AD3d
`
`1378,
`
`1379
`
`(3d Dept
`
`2017),
`
`the City
`
`of
`
`Ithaca
`
`established
`
`that
`
`it
`
`did
`
`not
`
`receive
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`by
`
`snhmitting
`
`an
`
`affidavit
`
`of
`
`the
`
`City
`
`Clerk,
`
`shifted
`
`who
`
`averred
`
`that
`
`no written
`
`notice
`
`had
`
`been
`
`received.
`
`At
`
`that
`
`point,
`
`"the
`
`burden
`
`then
`
`"to
`
`issues
`
`of
`
`fat
`
`as to
`
`the
`
`of
`
`an
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the written
`
`to plaintiffs
`
`notice
`
`requirement.""
`
`raise
`E The
`
`applicability
`
`Court
`
`stated,
`
`"plaintiffs
`
`were
`
`thus
`
`required
`
`to
`
`demonstrate
`
`that
`
`defendants'
`
`actions
`
`or
`
`omissions
`
`in
`
`the
`
`course
`
`of
`
`that
`
`reconstruction
`
`of
`
`the
`
`sidewalk
`
`"immediately
`
`result[ed]
`
`in the
`
`existence
`
`of
`
`[the]
`
`dangerous
`
`condition."
`
`Id.,
`
`citing,
`
`Yarborough
`
`City
`
`of New York.
`
`10 NY3d
`
`at 728;
`
`see
`
`also.
`
`San Marco
`
`v. Village/Town
`
`of Mount
`
`Kisco,
`
`v.
`
`16
`
`NY3d
`
`at 120; Oboler
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`8 NY3d
`
`888,
`
`889
`
`(2007).
`
`Due
`
`to the
`
`instant
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`Summary
`
`Judgment
`
`and
`
`the
`
`proof
`
`attached
`
`hereto,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`need
`
`to
`
`adduce
`
`evidence
`
`8
`
`8 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`condition
`
`on Woodscape
`
`Drive
`
`was
`
`created
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`by
`
`of Moreau;
`
`as
`
`evideñced
`
`the EBT
`
`by
`
`testimony
`
`of Christopher
`
`Williams,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`be
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`this
`
`fact.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`did
`
`plead
`
`in
`
`the Notice
`
`of Claim
`
`and
`
`in
`
`their
`
`Amcñded
`
`Complaints
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`created
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`condition.
`
`See, Exhibit
`
`A at ¶ 2; See
`
`also,
`
`Exhibit
`
`D at ¶
`
`17, Exhibit
`
`F at ¶¶
`
`19, 21,
`
`22. Despite
`
`these
`
`assertions,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`not
`
`be able
`
`to establish
`
`that
`
`Town
`
`created
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`the
`
`of Moreau
`
`actually
`
`c0ñdition.
`
`The
`
`testimony
`
`of Christopher
`
`Williams,
`
`a project
`
`manager
`
`with
`
`Commercial
`
`Paving
`
`Company,
`
`refutes
`
`a necessary
`
`element
`
`for
`
`the
`
`second
`
`exception
`
`of
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requiremêñt.
`
`The EBT
`
`testimony
`
`of Christopher
`
`Williams
`
`was
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`the
`
`paving
`
`work
`
`on Wecdseâpe
`
`Drive
`
`was
`
`not
`
`completed
`
`by
`
`town
`
`employees.
`
`The Michaels
`
`Group
`
`hired
`
`the Commercial
`
`Paving
`
`Cou1pany
`
`to comp1ctc
`
`the
`
`paying
`
`work
`
`at Weedscape
`
`Drive.
`
`S_ee, Exhibit
`
`I at
`
`12.
`
`The
`
`work
`
`completed
`
`by
`
`Commercial
`
`Paving
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau.
`
`I at 23.
`
`In
`
`Company
`
`was
`
`not
`
`directed
`
`by
`
`See, Exhibit
`
`fact,
`
`during
`
`his
`
`time
`
`as
`
`project
`
`inaua3er
`
`for
`
`the
`
`paving
`
`project
`
`on Woodscape
`
`Drive,
`
`Mr.
`
`Williams
`
`had
`
`no
`
`comm1micatióñ
`
`with
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau.
`
`S_e_e, Exhibit
`
`I at 21.
`
`Succinctly
`
`stated,
`
`it was
`
`work
`
`done
`
`by Commercial
`
`Paving
`
`Company,
`
`not
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`that
`
`resulted
`
`in
`
`the
`
`creation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`dangerous
`
`condition
`
`complained
`
`of by Plaintiffs.
`
`Based
`
`on
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`testimony,
`
`there
`
`can
`
`be no doubt
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`did
`
`not
`
`create
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`condition.
`
`Therefore,
`
`as
`
`a matter
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`will
`
`be
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`prove
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`created
`
`the
`
`defective
`
`condition.
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`second
`
`exception
`
`to
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`will
`
`never,
`
`and
`
`does
`
`not
`
`apply
`
`and
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`must
`
`be granted.
`
`As Plaintiffs
`
`can
`
`prove
`
`neither
`
`that
`
`the Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`received
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`defective
`
`condition
`
`of
`
`the
`
`pavement
`
`at 35 Woodscape
`
`Drive,
`
`nor
`
`that
`
`an exception
`
`of
`
`to
`
`9
`
`9 of 10
`
`

`

`FILED: SARATOGA COUNTY CLERK 04/12/2021 09:50 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
`
`INDEX NO. 20178
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2021
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`written
`
`notice
`
`requirement
`
`exists,
`
`the
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`held
`
`liable
`
`for
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`injuries
`
`and
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`Motion
`
`for Summary
`
`Judgment
`
`must
`
`be granted.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`reasons
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`herein,
`
`Defêñdant
`
`Town
`
`of Moreau
`
`respectfully
`
`requests
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`issue
`
`an order
`
`granting
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`Motion
`
`for Summary
`
`Judgment,
`
`along
`
`with
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`which
`
`as to the Court
`
`seems
`
`just
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated:
`
`November
`
`11, 2020
`
`Respectfully
`
`submitted,
`
`Ó
`
`BAKER
`
`FIRTH,
`
`P.C.
`
`FITZGERALD
`
`MORRIS
`
`By·
`
`AAAAAJ
`lanie
`S. McDermott
`Stel
`Attorneys
`for Defendant
`68 Warren
`Street
`P.O.
`Box
`2017
`Falls, NY 12801
`Glens
`745-1400
`
`(518)
`
`10
`
`10 of 10
`
`