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
THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE DEFENDANT’S ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER CONVICTION RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF A JAILHOUSE INFORMANT WHICH WAS AT ODDS WITH THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; THE TESTIMONY OF THE INFORMANT WAS REJECTED, RENDERING DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ORDER ADDRESSING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS ISSUED AFTER JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUBSUMED IN THE JUDGMENT, THE ORDER IS APPEALABLE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (FOURTH DEPT).
County Executive Has Authority to Commence Lawsuit Without Resolution from County Legislature
SENTENCE MUST BE PRONOUNCED ON EACH COUNT OF THE CONVICTION; SENTENCE VACATED AND REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF COCAINE UNDULY HARSH, CONCURRENT SENTENCES IMPOSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT BY THE INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AS MATERIAL PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).
RAPE THIRD IS NOT AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF RAPE FIRST; THE VERDICT SHEET INCLUDED AN IMPERMISSIBLE ANNOTATION, MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO THE ANNOTATION (FOURTH 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

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