You are here: / / IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, ALTHOUGH THE STATE DEMONSTRATED...
,

IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, ALTHOUGH THE STATE DEMONSTRATED THE INTERSECTION WAS SAFE WHEN CONSTRUCTED, CLAIMANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INCREASED TRAFFIC RENDERED THE INTERSECTION UNSAFE AND WHETHER THE STATE WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined claimant’s cause of action alleging the intersection where claimant was injured in a traffic accident was dangerous should not have been dismissed. Although the state demonstrated the intersection was not dangerous when constructed, claimant raised a question of fact whether increased traffic rendered the intersection dangerous and whether the state was aware of the danger:

Under the ordinary rules of negligence, the State “has a nondelegable duty to keep its roads reasonably safe . . . , and the State breaches that duty ‘when [it] is made aware of a dangerous highway condition and does not take action to remedy it’ ” … . The duty includes the “continuing duty to review [a planned intersection] in light of its actual operation” … . Although the State established that its design of the intersection in 1974 was reasonably safe, claimant raised an issue of fact whether the intersection was reasonably safe at the time of the accident in light of the significant increase in traffic at that intersection over the years for drivers turning left onto the I-690 West ramp … . Claimant submitted the affidavit of her expert, who averred that the significant increase in traffic volume warranted the installation of a left-turn-only lane for eastbound drivers turning left onto Collingwood. Indeed, the expert averred that there was insufficient sight distance for eastbound left-turning vehicles because of the continuous line of oncoming traffic. Lilian C. v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03618, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic-accident negligent-highway-design case, the state demonstrated the intersection was safe when constructed in 1974. But the claimant’s expert raised a question of fact whether increased traffic rendered the intersection unsafe. Claimant also raised a question of fact whether the state was aware of the danger.

 

You might also like
Failure to Pay Pension Benefits to Wife Pursuant to Divorce Was an Action which Accrued Anew Each Time a Payment Was Missed for Statute of Limitations Purposes—Plaintiff Could Sue Only for Missed Payments Going Back Six Years from When Payments Began
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE HE SIGNED WAS INVALID DUE TO MUTUAL MISTAKE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF LUMBAR DISC INJURIES AND LEFT HIP DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE; IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS “NOT FAIRLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE;” CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE NO REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE (FOURTH DEPT).
ENGAGING IN COUNSELING SHOULD NOT BE A CONDITION OF VISITATION; THE COURT SHOULD NOT DELEGATE ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IF AND WHEN VISITATION SHOULD OCCUR TO A COUNSELOR (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER (1) DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, (2) WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND (3) WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COVID-19 TOLLS SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY COMMENCED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN THE TRUCK IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER APPARENTLY FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND PULLED INTO DEFENDANT’S PATH; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Proof Requirements Re: Whether An Account Is Entirely Marital Property 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

DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS... DEFENDANT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT’S DISCUSSION OF PLAINTIFF CROSS-COUNTY...