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
LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.
Corroboration Requirements for Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Described
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, APPOINTED A RECEIVER BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE DUTY OF CARE AND KNOWLEDGE ELEMENTS OF A SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S POST-HEARING SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS, FATHER DEPRIVED OF ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND OBJECT TO EXHIBITS.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
City Immune from Liability for Actions of Police Engaged in a Governmental Function–No Special Relationship with Plaintiff
DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A CORRECTED DEED AND THE CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (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...