You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the county’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this vehicle-accident case alleging the negligent failure to install a guardrail. The county did not demonstrate it was entitled to qualified immunity based upon a relevant highway-safety study of the area, and did not demonstrate the absence of a guardrail was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries:

A municipal defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … . Here, the evidence presented by the County failed to establish that it undertook a study which entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that is at issue in this case … . …

… [T]he County failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have a duty to place guardrails near the concrete headwall involved in the plaintiff’s accident. …

… [T]he County’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether its alleged negligence in failing to place guardrails near the concrete headwall … was a substantial factor in aggravating the plaintiff’s injuries … . Bednoski v County of Suffolk, 2016 NY Slip Op 08832, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/GUARDRAILS (MUNICIPAL LAW, COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

,

NYC RENT STABILIZATION RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE AFTER 1974.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined the exemption from (New York City) rent stabilization rules for housing units constructed after January 1, 1974, applied to defendant’s post-1974 conversion of a commercial building to residential units:

… [Supreme Court] found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing that the complex was exempt from rent stabilization by demonstrating that its renovations had converted the complex from commercial to residential use, and that it had paid for a majority of the conversion costs. The court further found that the plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the complex was subject to rent stabilization. In this regard, the court reasoned that the 75% requirement of Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.11 did not apply where a commercial building was converted to residential use. We affirm. * * *

The plaintiffs contend that … they raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant failed to replace 75% of the systems … in accordance with section 2520.11(e)(1) of the Rent Stabilization Code… . We disagree. The most natural reading of the … 75% requirement is that it is applicable in situations where an owner purports to substantially rehabilitate an existing residential building, and not in situations where a commercial building is converted to residential use. Bartis v Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08831, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

LANDLORD-TENANT (NYC RENT STABILIZATION RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE AFTER 1974)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC RENT STABILIZATION RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE AFTER 1974)/RENT STABILIZATION (NYC RENT STABILIZATION RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE AFTER 1974)

,

DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO FLESH OUT RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTIES, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTY, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR SUIT AGAINST LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, MUNICIPAL LAW.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case was premature. The truck which struck plaintiff’s vehicle was registered to Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) but the driver was an employee of National Grid, which was under contract with LIPA. Plaintiff never served a notice of claim on LIPA, as required by the Public Authorities Law and the General Municipal Law. The Second Department held that plaintiff was entitled to discovery concerning the relationship between LIPA and National Grid, and further held that the relation-back doctrine allowed the amendment of the complaint to add National Grid as a defendant:

A party who contends that a motion for summary judgment is premature must “demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” … . In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendants had not revealed that, at the time of the subject accident, the defendant driver was actually employed by National Grid LLC, and not LIPA, until the defendants filed their summary judgment motion. The award of summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant driver was therefore premature, inasmuch as substantial discovery with respect to the relationship between the National Grid LLC and the defendant driver, as well as the nature of the business the defendant driver was conducting at the time of the subject accident, remains outstanding … . Marrone v Miloscio, 2016 NY Slip Op 08856, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO FLESH OUT RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTIES, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTY)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO FLESH OUT RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTIES)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR SUIT AGAINST LONG ISLAN POWER AUTHORITY)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (SUIT AGAINS LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY)

, ,

FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED.

The Second Department determined the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law, made at the close of plaintiff’s proof, should have been granted. Plaintiff was stopped by the police for urinating in public. Based on an outstanding warrant for plaintiff’s arrest, plaintiff was arrested and detained. After dismissal of the charges, plaintiff sued alleging false arrest and civil rights violations (42 USC 1983). Because plaintiff’s arrest was pursuant to a warrant, the arrest was privileged and could not form the basis of the false arrest and 42 USC 1983 causes of action:

To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational basis by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant … . The plaintiff’s evidence must be accepted as true, and the plaintiff is entitled to every favorable inference that can be reasonably drawn therefrom … .

Where the confinement or detention of an individual against his or her will is privileged, a cause of action alleging false arrest will not lie … . One instance in which the privilege applies is when the confinement is based on a facially valid arrest warrant, issued by a court having jurisdiction … .

Here, the plaintiff did not contest the fact that the warrant was facially valid, and was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Ali v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08490, Second Dept 12-22-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)/CIVIL RIGHTS (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)/FALSE ARREST (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)/42 USC 1983 (FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST STEMMING FROM A WARRANT WAS PRIVILEGED)

,

CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion, determined the city was properly held liable for an accident on a road known for speeding. Plaintiff, a twelve-year-old boy, was struck while trying to cross the road on his bicycle. The driver was going 54 miles per hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone. The city had received numerous speeding complaints over the years and had undertaken four studies to determine whether traffic control devices should be installed on the road. Plaintiffs presented evidence that traffic control devices would not solve the speeding problem and so-called “traffic calming” measures were needed (speed humps, raised cross-walks, etc.). The Court of Appeals, affirming Supreme Court, found that maintaining safe roadways was a proprietary function, not a governmental function. Therefore there was no need for a special relationship with plaintiff as a prerequisite for liability. The court further found that the city was not entitled to qualified immunity stemming from the traffic studies, because the studies did not address “traffic calming” measures:

We do not suggest that a municipality has a proprietary duty to keep its roadways free from all unlawful or reckless driving behavior. Under the particular circumstances of this case, however, plaintiffs demonstrated that the City was made aware through repeated complaints of ongoing speeding along Gerritsen Avenue, that the City could have implemented roadway design changes in the form of traffic calming measures to deter speeding, and that the City failed to conduct a study of whether traffic calming measures were appropriate and therefore failed to implement any such measures. … [W]hether the City’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident or [the driver’s] speeding was the sole proximate cause, and whether the City was entitled to qualified immunity based on its response to those repeated complaints, were both issues to be resolved by the jury.  Turturro v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08579, CtApp 12-22-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED)/IMMUNITY (CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED)/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED)

,

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DeFiore, reversing the appellate division, clarified the procedure for establishing a school district or municipal corporation has been prejudiced by a delay in filing a notice of claim for a tort action. Here a student was injured by a car in the vicinity of the respondent school. The school had been made aware of the location and nature of the accident. After the 90-day notice of claim period had passed, petitioner learned there had been a sign erected by the school that may have had a role in the accident. In denying the motion for leave to file a late notice, Supreme Court placed the burden entirely on the petitioner to demonstrate the school was not prejudiced by the delay. The Court of Appeals clarified the relative burdens of proof on that issue:

We hold that the burden initially rests on the petitioner to show that the late notice will not substantially prejudice the public corporation. Such a showing need not be extensive, but the petitioner must present some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice. * * *

The rule we endorse today — requiring a petitioner to make an initial showing that the public corporation will not be substantially prejudiced and then requiring the public corporation to rebut that showing with particularized evidence — strikes a fair balance. We recognize that a petitioner seeking to excuse the failure to timely comply with the notice requirement should have the initial burden to show that the public corporation will not be substantially prejudiced by the delay. The public corporation, however, is in the best position to know and demonstrate whether it has been substantially prejudiced by the late notice. Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 08581, CtApp 12-22-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED)/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED)

,

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic accident case, determined the causes of action against abutting property owners (the Herlichs) and the county alleging obstruction of sight at an intersection should not have been dismissed:

“A homeowner has no duty under the common law to prevent vegetation from creating a visual obstruction to users of a public roadway, but a duty to such users may be created by statute or ordinance” … . “[W]here a specific regulatory provision . . . imposes upon property owners a duty to prevent vegetation from visually obstructing the roadway, proof of noncompliance with the regulatory provision may give rise to tort liability for any damages proximately caused thereby” … . Here, the Herlich defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they failed to demonstrate that the hedge on their property did not constitute a visual obstruction in violation of Code of the Town of Oyster Bay chapter 246 § 246-4.4.4, and Code of the Village of Massapequa Park chapter 298, article I, § … . …

“It has long been established that a governmental body, be it the State, a county or a municipality, is under a nondelegable duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition, and that liability will flow for injuries resulting from a breach of the duty” … . Here, the County, which concedes that the section of Park Boulevard where the accident occurred was within its jurisdiction, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that Park Boulevard was maintained in a reasonably safe condition with unobstructed sight lines. Dutka v Odierno, 2016 NY Slip Op 08196, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/INTERSECTIONS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND COUNTY ALLEGING OBSTRUCTION OF SIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s wrongful termination suit against the county was properly dismissed for failure to file a notice of claim. The court noted that the notice of claim requirement for suits against cities is more narrow and applies only to tort cases. The notice of claim requirements for suits against counties are not limited to tort actions:

County Law § 52 (1) broadly provides that “[a]ny claim . . . against a county for damage [or] injury . . . and any other claim for damages arising at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused . . . by or because of any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence or wrongful act on the part of the county, its officers, agents, servants or employees, must be made and served in compliance with [General Municipal Law § 50-e]” … . Here, plaintiff’s complaint sought damages for wrongful termination and, thus, pursuant to County Law § 52 (1), General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) required service of a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim for retaliatory termination arose. It is undisputed that plaintiff failed to serve a notice of claim, entitling defendant to dismissal of the complaint … .

Plaintiff’s reliance on appellate decisions involving complaints asserting a Civil Service Law § 75-b or similar claims against cities, in which the courts have ruled that the filing of a notice of claim is not required … , is misplaced. The cases cited by plaintiff involve claims against cities to which the more narrow notice of claim provisions of General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i apply, limiting the requirement for notices of claim to “tort” claims (General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]) or claims for “personal injury, wrongful death or damage to real or personal property” (General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). Sager v County of Sullivan, 2016 NY Slip Op 08152, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/WRONGFUL TERMINATION (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)/COUNTIES (WRONGFUL TERMINATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT AGAINST A COUNTY, EVEN THOUGH A NOTICE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST A CITY)

, ,

FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS.

The Third Department determined the action against the city alleging negligence resulting in the destruction of plaintiffs’ property by fire should not have been dismissed. Fire department personnel told the plaintiffs the fire had been extinguished and that it was safe to reenter. However the fire rekindled. The Third Department held that there was a “special relationship” between the city and the plaintiffs stemming from the assurances the fire was out:

To establish a special relationship, plaintiffs were required to show: “(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking” … .

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and providing them the benefit of every favorable inference …, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed. With regard to the first element, there is no dispute that defendants’ agents dispatched the Department to plaintiffs’ residence in response to their 911 call for assistance and that the responding crew thereafter assumed control over the ongoing fire. Even if the Department’s actions in that regard simply constituted the performance of a duty owed to the public generally … , we are of the view that, by making affirmative representations to plaintiffs that the fire had been fully extinguished and that it was safe to reenter the home, the Department assumed an affirmative duty to plaintiffs … . As for the second and third elements, knowledge on the part of the Department that inaction could result in harm can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances … , and the Department’s employees undisputedly had direct contact with plaintiffs. With respect to the final element, plaintiffs allege that they relied upon the Department’s assurances that the fire was completely extinguished in choosing to leave their home unattended for the evening. Trimble v City of Albany, 2016 NY Slip Op 07912, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)/FIRE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s action alleging defective design and construction of a highway should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s car slid on ice and snow and went off the road. Plaintiff alleged a guardrail should have been installed. The court noted that the written notice requirement did not apply to the guardrail allegation:

A municipality has a nondelegable duty to the public to construct and maintain its roads in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to furnishing and maintaining adequate barriers or guardrails where appropriate … . To that end, a municipality is under no obligation to upgrade its roads that complied with design standards when they were built merely because the standards were subsequently upgraded … .

We conclude that defendant failed to establish that the design of the road comported with the applicable standards at the time that County Road 113 was constructed. County Road 113, over which defendant admitted ownership, was constructed in the late 1940s. Defendant’s engineering expert did not identify what standards were in effect at the time that County Road 113 was designed or constructed … . Rather, defendant’s expert cited to the Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual in concluding that there was little justification for the placement of a guardrail at the location of [the] accident. This manual, however, was published in the 1970s and, therefore, does not apply to County Road 113. Fu v County of Wash., 2016 NY Slip Op 07910, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/HIGHWAYS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/GUARDRAILS (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

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