Case Title: Harry Kushner v City of Albany

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2006-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Kushner v City of Albany


2006 NY Slip Op 04343 [7 NY3d 726]


June 6, 2006


Court of Appeals


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


As corrected through Wednesday, July 26, 2006



[*1]
Harry Kushner et al., Appellants,vCity of Albany, Respondent.Decided June 6, 2006



Kushner v City of Albany, 27 AD3d 851, affirmed.



APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL


Rothschild Law Firm, P.C., Syracuse (Martin J. Rothschild of counsel), for appellants.
Napierski, Vandenburgh & Napierski, L.L.P., Albany (Eugene Daniel Napierski of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The Appellate Division properly determined that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to withstand a motion for a directed verdict on the question of whether plaintiff's alleged injuries resulted from an affirmative act of negligence that would preclude defendant City of Albany from relying on its prior written notice law (see Amabile v City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 473-474 [1999]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.