Balsan v. County of SuffolkBalsan v. County of Suffolk
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant‘s contentions, the prior written notice requirement of
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly determined that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had sufficient time after the precipitation and temperature fluctuations ended to remedy the condition complained of (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.