You are here: / / Obstruction of View of Stop Sign by Vegetation Not Actionable Against the...
,

Obstruction of View of Stop Sign by Vegetation Not Actionable Against the Town Without Allegation Town Had Prior Written Notice of the Obstruction

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed the cause of action against the Town of Oyster Bay which alleged vegetation had been allowed to obstruct a stop sign (leading to a collision).  The prior written notice requirement applied and the plaintiffs did not allege the Town had prior written notice of the obstruction:

The Town correctly argues that any claim that vegetation obstructed a driver’s view of the intersection and of traffic on the intersecting roadways is subject to its prior written notice statute … . Since the plaintiffs did not allege that the Town had received prior written notice of any obstructed sight lines in and around the subject intersection, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Town’s motion which was to dismiss that claim … . Dutka v Odierno, 2014 NY Slip Op 02558, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

You might also like
Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated the Default Pursuant to CPLR 317
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE; THE PURSUED CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR; THE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER AND THE TOWN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
Statement About Gang Affiliation Should Have Been Suppressed—Not Merely “Pedigree” Information
Installing, Pursuant to a Resolution, a Temporary Barrier to Address Traffic and Speeding Problems Did Not Violate the “Prior Public Use” Doctrine
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 13O4 AND A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT REVERSED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK BECAUSE ONE OF TWO BORROWERS WAS NOT NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING; THIS RULING MAY NOT HOLD UP BECAUSE, ON MARCH 30, 2021, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD ONLY ONE BORROWER NEED BE NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Application for Undue Hardship Exception to Medicaid Ineligibility Should Have... Defect Properly Found Trivial As a Matter of Law