You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY’S...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY’S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant gas company's (appellant's) motion for summary judgment in this negligence action should have been granted. During a hurricane a tree in plaintiff's neighbor's yard uprooted and disturbed a gas line, causing the neighbor's home to explode. Plaintiff allegedly was injured by debris from the explosion. The Second Department held that plaintiff had not raised a question of fact about whether the gas line was negligently maintained or whether the dangerous condition was created by the gas company:

… [T]he appellant established, prima facie, that it was not negligent in the installation of the subject gas service line … . The appellant submitted evidence that the tree that uprooted was not present in 1936 when the gas service line was installed. This evidence included the deposition testimony of a former senior administrator for the appellant's predecessor, who testified that the presence of a tree would have rendered it impossible to install the line where it was placed in 1936. The appellant also submitted an affidavit of an arborist, who opined that the subject tree was a mature tree planted after the construction of the community was completed in 1938, based on the fact that nearly every other house on the subject block had alternating plantings of similar sized trees, thereby demonstrating that the trees were intentionally planted as part of the development of the community. …

Further, the appellant established, prima facie, that it was not negligent in maintaining the gas service line. The appellants' experts noted that the appellant complied with applicable regulations (see 49 CFR 192.723; 16 NYCRR 255.723) by performing a walking survey of the property on which the tree was located to detect leaks on July 28, 2010, within the three-year period prior to the explosion. The appellant submitted evidence demonstrating that no leaks were detected during that walking survey… . Deitrick v Long Is. Power Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 06079, Second Dept 9-19-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY'S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/UTILITIES (GAS EXPLOSION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY'S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/GAS (UTILITIES, NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY'S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
A GENERAL RELEASE AND WAIVER WHICH IS CONTRADICTED BY ACTIONS WHICH POST-DATE THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A RELEASE; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE POWER, SUA SPONTE, PURSUANT TO CPLR 5019, TO VACATE THE COURT’S OWN ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE.
AFTER CONVERTING THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION TO A COMPLAINT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF THE CARRIER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT ITS INSURED’S CAR HAD BEEN STOLEN; THE UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER’S PETITION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY OF ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BY ARGUING HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPON AND AMMUNITION WERE IN THE TRUCK HE WAS DRIVING, DEFENDANT PUT HIS STATE OF MIND IN ISSUE; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE HE HAD TWICE BEFORE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, ONCE ON A PLANE AND ONCE IN A VEHICLE, WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Denied—Criteria Explained

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

PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL,... IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE ISSUES OF FACT...