AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

MILDRED DWORKIN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. ECOLAB, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF RAMAPO, APPELLANT.

ORDERED that the appeals from the order dated May 16, 2000, are dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated December 17, 1999, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion of the defendant Town of Ramapo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and substituting therefor a provision granting that motion; as so modified, that order is affirmed insofar as appealed and appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant Town of Ramapo, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The defendant Bruce H. Edelson, his employer, the defendant Ecolab, Inc., and the defendant G.E. Capital Fleet Services were properly granted summary judgment, as they made out a prima facie case that the accident resulted solely from the plaintiff's negligence, and the opposition submitted by the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact. The evidence established that the plaintiff either failed to stop at a stop sign or, upon doing so, failed to yield the right of way to the motor vehicle driven by Edelson (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a]; Wolfson v. Milillo, 262 A.D.2d 636; Cascio v. Scigiano, 262 A.D.2d 264; McClelland v. Seery, 261 A.D.2d 451; Miranda v. Devlin, 260 A.D.2d 451; Singh v. Shafi, 252 A.D.2d 494).

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Town of Ramapo (hereinafter Ramapo) based upon its alleged failure to trim shrubs, grass, and weeds which allegedly obstructed the plaintiff's view of oncoming traffic lacks merit. It is undisputed that Ramapo never received prior written notice concerning such a condition, as required by the Ramapo Town Code (see, Ramapo Town Code § 26-1; Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 N.Y.2d 471; Forsythe-Kane v. Town of Yorktown, 249 A.D.2d 505).

We decline to reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions, as they were not properly raised before the Supreme Court (see, Zacher v. Oakdale Islandia Ltd. Partnership, 271 A.D.2d 441).

SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DWORKIN v. ECOLAB, INC
(May 21, 2001)