You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF...
,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DETERIORATION OF A TREE LIMB WHICH FELL ON PLANTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners (Monacos) did not have constructive notice of the deteriorated condition of a tree limb which fell on plaintiff’s car:

In cases involving fallen trees, a property owner will only be held liable for a tree that falls outside of his or her premises and injures another if he or she knew or should have known of the defective condition of the tree … . Constructive notice may be based upon signs of decay or other defects that are readily observable by someone on the ground or that a reasonable inspection would have revealed … . “At least as to adjoining landowners, the concept of constructive notice with respect to liability for falling trees is that there is no duty to consistently and constantly check all trees for nonvisible decay. Rather, the manifestation of said decay must be readily observable in order to require a landowner to take reasonable steps to prevent harm” … . * * *

The plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any visible defect or decay would have been readily observable by the Monacos prior to the fall of the limb … . Although the plaintiff’s expert concluded that there was visible decay at the top of the branch where it had been attached to the trunk, approximately 12 feet above grade, and that such decay caused the branch to fall, his conclusions were based upon close observation, and therefore, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Monacos should have realized that a potentially defective condition existed … . Sasso v Village of Bronxville, 2022 NY Slip Op 05105, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here a tree limb fell on plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff’s expert concluded the tree limb was deteriorated, but only after close inspection of the limb. The expert evidence did not raise a question of fact about whether the property owner’s had constructive knowledge of the condition of the limb.

 

You might also like
NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
The Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy In an Envelope Containing His Personal Belongings—The Belongings Were Placed in the Envelope Upon Defendant’s Admission to a Hospital—Even though the Police Were Under the Impression the Defendant Was a Crime Victim, Not a Perpetrator, at the Time the Contents of the Envelope Were Examined, the Search Was Not Justified—Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy Re: the Contents of the Envelope—The People Were Unable to Meet their “Burden of Going Forward” at the Suppression Hearing Because They Could Not Demonstrate the Legality of the Police Conduct
SUPREME COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROCEEDING UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 52 TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STATE INSURANCE FUND TO THE EXTENT THE STATE IS A GARNISHEE (SECOND DEPT)
Two-Hour Interval Did Not Return Defendant to Status of One Who Was Not Under the Influence of Unwarned Questioning—Subsequent Mirandized Statement Should Have Been Suppressed—Harmless Error Here However
OFFICER DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VAN AFTER HE LEARNED THAT DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, WAS SMOKING A CIGAR, NOT MARIJUANA, SUPREME COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH WAS ERROR, THERE WAS UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THE VAN WAS DEFENDANT’S WORK VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention of the Defendant to Conduct a Brief Investigation—Arrest of the Defendant in the Absence of Probable Cause Required Suppression of Defendant’s Statement
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (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

THE RULING THAT PETITIONER-CORRECTION-OFFICER’S DISABLING CONDITION WAS... ONCE PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY STIPULATION, THE...