You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A FALLING TREE LIMB; THE CITY AND COUNTY, AS PART...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A FALLING TREE LIMB; THE CITY AND COUNTY, AS PART OWNERS OF THE TREE, CANNOT BE LIABLE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VISIBLE SIGNS OF DECAY; THE PRIVATE PARTY WHOSE NEIGHBOR WAS INJURED BY THE FALLING LIMB, HOWEVER, MAY BE LIABLE BECAUSE HE WAS AWARE THE LIMB WAS WEAK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the city and county defendants (part owners of the tree) could not be held liable for injuries caused by a falling tree limb because there were no visible signs of decay. The defendant property-owner, whose neighbor was struck by the limb, however, may be liable because he was aware the limb was weak:

Accepting for purposes of the respective motions that the City and the Land Bank are part owners of the tree, we note, and the parties do not otherwise suggest, that neither had actual notice of any potential danger posed by the tree, thus requiring that the contribution claim against both entities be established on a theory of constructive notice. To that end, “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” … . Weaver v Metsker, 2024 NY Slip Op 05380, Third Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: In order to demonstrate the county and city, part owners of a tree along with a private party, had constructive notice that a tree limb posed a danger of falling, there must have been some visible sign of decay.

Practice Point: Even if there are no visible signs of decay, a private party who owns a tree may be liable for a neighbor’s injury from a falling limb if he or she is aware the limb was “weak.”

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT DIRECT OR EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE RECORD SUPPORTED COUNTY COURT’S CONCLUSION THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS A ‘PRETEXT’ FOR A SEARCH FOR INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
PARALEGAL IN SMALL LAW OFFICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALFORD PLEA WOULD BE PREMISED ON HIS ABILITY TO APPEAL A GRAND-JURY EVIDENCE ISSUE; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD SUCH CONDITIONAL PLEAS ARE GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED IN NEW YORK; MATTER SENT BACK TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, COCAINE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S BUTTOCKS-AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).
LINK BETWEEN HEART ATTACK AND WORK NOT ESTABLISHED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
“Prompt Outcry” Exception to Hearsay Rule Applied to Complaint Made After Several Days
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS PROPERLY CERTIFIED “ABANDONED” SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS MAINTENANCE; AND PETITIONER STATED AN EQUAL-PROTECTION CLAIM UNDER 42 USC 1983 (THIRD 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

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED... THE RECORD ON APPEAL DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S RULING MOTHER HAD...