You are here: / / USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY,...

USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of whether a roadway had been abandoned under Highway Law 205. The court noted that the lack of use by vehicles does not necessarily render a roadway abandoned. Use by pedestrians and bicyclists may suffice. The plaintiff demonstrated such recreational use. The town raised a question of fact whether the roadway had been abandoned with proof portions of the roadway were impassable:

Once a highway exists, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is demonstrated … . “It will be deemed abandoned, however, if it is not traveled or used as a public highway for six years” … . To show use as a highway, there must be evidence that travel proceeds, in forms reasonably normal, along the lines of an existing street … . Automobile use is not determinative in assessing whether a road has been abandoned … . Indeed, evidence of frequent recreational activity may be sufficient to preclude a finding of abandonment … . Dandomar Co., LLC v Town of Pleasant Val. Town Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 05905, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW)/HIGHWAY LAW (USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW)/ABANDONMENT (HIGHWAY LAW, USE OF ROADWAY BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS MAY SUFFICE TO SHOW A ROADWAY, NOT USED BY VEHICLES, HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HIGHWAY LAW)

You might also like
EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ROBBERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
DESPITE THE CITY CODE PROVISION CREATING A NONDELEGABLE DUTY ON THE OWNER’S PART TO MAINTAIN AN ABUTTING SIDEWALK, THE TERMS OF THE LEASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE TENANT’S LIABILITY [LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES ARISING FROM CONTRACT].
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT TESTIFY THE STAIRWAY VIOLATED ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, THE EXPERT COULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION VIOLATED A CUSTOM IN THE INDUSTRY AS REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS STANDARDS; THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING (SECOND DEPT).
CORRIDOR FORMED BY LUMBER AND MATERIALS PILED ON EITHER SIDE WAS A PASSAGEWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE, DEFENDANT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6).
THE CRITERIA FOR “A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL CONTACT” WERE NOT MET; DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION AND DETERMINED ISSUES OF FACT; NO MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT AND NO HEARING WAS HELD (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

BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS... FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE...