Klapak v. City of Ithaca, 82 N.Y.2d 844 (1993)
A municipality has a continuing duty to maintain its public roadways in a reasonably safe condition, and a claim based on the breach of that duty accrues at the time of the accident caused by the unsafe condition.
Summary
Plaintiff sued the City of Ithaca for injuries sustained due to a defective sidewalk. The City had previously removed a tree stump in 1982, creating the defect. The Court of Appeals held that the City had a continuing duty to maintain its roadways, independent of its duty not to create a defective condition. The plaintiff’s claim was timely because it was filed within one year and 90 days of the accident, which was the breach of the City’s ongoing duty. Furthermore, because the City created the defect, prior written notice was not required.
Facts
The City of Ithaca removed a tree stump in 1982. This removal allegedly created a broken and defective condition in the sidewalk. The plaintiff sustained injuries due to this defective condition.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued the City for personal injuries. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not receive prior written notice of the defect as required by the Ithaca City Charter. The plaintiff cross-moved to amend the complaint to add the factual allegation that the City removed the tree stump. The Appellate Division denied the City’s motion and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion. The City appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff’s claim was timely, considering the City’s removal of the tree stump occurred more than one year and 90 days before the accident.
Holding
No, because the City had a continuing duty to maintain the sidewalk, and the claim accrued at the time of the accident, which was within the statutory period.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that a municipality has a continuing duty to maintain its public roadways in a reasonably safe condition. This duty is independent of the duty not to create a defective condition. The court stated, “It is well established that a municipality is under a continuing duty to maintain its public roadways in a reasonably safe condition (see, D’Ambrosio v City of New York, 55 NY2d 454, 462; Blake v City of Albany, 48 NY2d 875, 876), and that such duty is independent of its duty not to create a defective condition (see, Sniper v City of Syracuse, 139 AD2d 93, 96).” The breach of this ongoing duty occurred when the plaintiff was injured. Therefore, the claim was timely because it was brought within one year and 90 days after the breach. The court also noted that because the City created the defect, prior written notice was not required, citing Muszynski v City of Buffalo, 29 NY2d 810. The court clarified that the amended complaint should not be construed as stating a separate cause of action based solely on the City’s negligence in removing the tree stump, but rather as adding the factual allegation that the City created the defective condition, thus obviating the need for prior written notice.