You are here: / / Town’s Duty to Maintain Roadways in a Safe Condition Extends to the...
,

Town’s Duty to Maintain Roadways in a Safe Condition Extends to the Maintenance of Trees Not Located on Town Property—Here a Tree Limb Fell Onto Plaintiffs’ Moving Vehicle

The plaintiffs were injured when a limb fell from a tree onto their moving vehicle.  The defendant town moved for summary judgment, alleging that the tree was not located in the town’s right of way and the town did not therefore owe a duty to the plaintiffs.  The Second Department disagreed:

The Town’s duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition extends to the maintenance of trees, adjacent to a road, that could reasonably be expected to pose a danger to travelers … . Contrary to the Town’s contention that it owed no duty to the plaintiffs by virtue of the fact that it did not own, maintain, or control the subject tree or the location of that tree, “the exact location of the tree with respect to the Town’s right of way is not dispositive” of the issue of the Town’s duty … . Accordingly, the Town failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the Supreme Court correctly denied the Town’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Piscitelli v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 06961, 2nd Dept 10-15-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT SLID CAUSING HIM TO FALL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF EVENTS BEYOND WALKING TOWARD THE BUS AT A BUS STOP; SHE SUFFERED A CRUSHED FOOT; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPLAINT THAT IS NEVER SERVED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN “ACTION;” HERE A PRIOR COMPLAINT WAS NEVER SERVED; THEREFORE THE INSTANT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS ANOTHER IDENTICAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH INSURANCE FRAUD INVOLVING AIG, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO WORKED FOR AIG SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Submit Expert Affidavit In Support of Meterological Data Precluded... Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Is Available to a Persistent Felony Offender...