You are here: / / CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION...
,

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the causes of action against abutting property owners (the Herlichs) and the county alleging obstruction of sight at an intersection should not have been dismissed:

“A homeowner has no duty under the common law to prevent vegetation from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway, but a duty to such users may be created by statute or ordinance” … . “[W]here a specific regulatory provision . . . imposes upon property owners a duty to prevent vegetation from visually obstructing the roadway, proof of noncompliance with the regulatory provision may give rise to tort liability for any damages proximately caused thereby” … . Here, the Herlich defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they failed to demonstrate that the hedge on their property did not constitute a visual obstruction in violation of Code of the Town of Oyster Bay chapter 246 § 246-4.4.4, and Code of the Village of Massapequa Park chapter 298, article I, § … . …

“It has long been established that a governmental body, be it the State, a county or a municipality, is under a nondelegable duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition, and that liability will flow for injuries resulting from a breach of the duty” … . Here, the County, which concedes that the section of Park Boulevard where the accident occurred was within its jurisdiction, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that Park Boulevard was maintained in a reasonably safe condition with unobstructed sight lines. Dutka v Odierno, 2016 NY Slip Op 08196, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/INTERSECTIONS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

You might also like
TOWN DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING A STREET AFTER ATTENDING A TOWN FIREWORKS DISPLAY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 FORECLOSURE NOTICE, TO BE VALID, MUST ACCURATELY STATE THE DEFAULT AMOUNT AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THE BORROWER HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING HERE THE STATED AMOUNT WAS INACCURATE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE OF A MERGER SUBMITTED IN REPLY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE STANDING ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL;” THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS WERE TREATED ONLY ON THE DAY OF THEIR INJURIES, LOST NO WORK AND HAD NO OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES; THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICAL BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) AND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
Wife’s Concealment of Terminal Cancer Did Not Warrant Rescission of Divorce Settlement Agreement
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING MOTHER NEGLECTED HER TWO-MONTH OLD CHILD BY EXPOSING THE CHILD TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THAT THE CHILD MAY HAVE HEARD LOUD ARGUING BEFORE GRANDMOTHER TOOK THE CHILD TO HER APARTMENT WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Language of Exclusion from Coverage, Including the Phrase “Arising Out Of” Was Not Ambiguous—Insurer Was Not Obligated to Defend or Indemnify Defendants
PHARMACIST’S DUTY OF CARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED AFTER IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE/WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE PHARMACIST AND PHARMACY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY... PROHIBITING SEPTIC SYSTEMS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A LAKE WAS NOT AN UNCONSITUTIONAL...