16 N.Y.3d 111 (2010)
r
r
A prior written notice statute does not bar recovery against a municipality where the municipality’s negligent snow removal efforts may have created the ice hazard, and the municipality may have known of the hazard.
r
r
Summary
r
Plaintiff Dale San Marco sued the Village/Town of Mount Kisco after slipping on black ice in a village-owned parking lot. She argued the ice formed due to the village’s negligent snow removal. The Village claimed protection under a prior written notice statute. The Court of Appeals held that the statute doesn’t automatically bar recovery if the municipality’s actions created the hazard and had knowledge of it, distinguishing this case from pothole cases where the hazard develops over time. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment to the Village, finding triable issues of fact.
r
r
Facts
r
Dale San Marco fell on black ice in a parking lot owned by the Village/Town of Mount Kisco. The fall occurred on a Saturday morning. The Village had treated the parking lot for ice the previous Friday morning. The air temperature rose above freezing for approximately 19 hours between the Village’s treatment and San Marco’s fall. San Marco alleged the black ice was caused by the melting and refreezing of a pile of snow the Village plowed near parking spaces. The Village did not have a work crew monitoring the parking lot on weekends.
r
r
Procedural History
r
San Marco sued the Village, alleging negligence. The Village argued lack of prior written notice shielded them from liability. The Supreme Court denied the Village’s motion for summary judgment, finding a question of fact as to whether the Village created the hazardous condition. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the Village. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and denied summary judgment to the Village.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a prior written notice statute acts as an absolute bar to recovery against a municipality where the plaintiff slipped and fell on black ice that formed on the municipality’s property and where the ice hazard at issue may have been created by the municipality’s negligent snow removal efforts.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because prior written notice statutes were never intended to exempt a municipality from liability where the municipality’s negligence in maintaining a municipally owned parking facility triggers the foreseeable development of black ice.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court distinguished this case from prior cases involving potholes or uneven manhole covers (Yarborough v. City of New York and Oboler v. City of New York), where the “affirmative negligence” exception to prior written notice statutes only applies where the municipality’s action “immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition.” The Court reasoned that those cases involved hazards that develop over time. In contrast, snow removal presents the foreseeable risk of melting and refreezing. The Court stated that, unlike a pothole,