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
SERVICE OF A VALID RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; HERE THE AMOUNT OWED INDICATED IN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICES DIFFERED FROM THE AMOUNT OWED INDICATED IN THE COMPLAINT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INCORRECT AND THEREFORE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NONACTIONABLE AS “TRIVIAL” IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE JURY; IN OTHER WORDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP RE: SEEKING SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS FOR HER SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED (SECOND DEPT).
Bicyclist’s Negligence as a Matter of Law Did Not Warrant Summary Judgment to Defendant (Bus Driver, etc.)/There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident
USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR MOSTLY WEEKEND SHORT-RENTALS IS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD FROM A DISMANTLED FENCE WHICH FELL OFF A FORKLIFT; DISMANTLING THE FENCE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY AND THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A COVERED ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED THE GUARDIANSHIP OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
General Obligations Law Prohibition of Indemnification Agreements Which Exempt a Lessor from Its Own Negligence Does Not Apply to a Commercial Lease Negotiated at Arm’s Length Between Sophisticated Parties With an Insurance Procurement Requirement

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...