Abrahams v. Town of Brookhaven

220 A.D.2d 472, 631 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9965
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 10, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 472 (Abrahams v. Town of Brookhaven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abrahams v. Town of Brookhaven, 220 A.D.2d 472, 631 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (New-mark, J.), dated March 9, 1994, which granted the defendant Town of Brookhaven’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In the case at bar, the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Town) conducted two adequate traffic studies of the intersection where the accident occurred within a four-year period prior to the accident date. Moreover, as a result of these studies, the Town enacted reasonable and appropriate safety measures, including the installation of an "intersection ahead” sign which warned of the presence of the intersection to approaching motorists, such as the plaintiff (cf., Scheemaker v State of New York, 70 NY2d 985). Accordingly, the Town is entitled to qualified immunity from liability arising out of its highway planning decisions for this intersection (see, Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579; Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271). In addition, the opinion of the plaintiff’s professional engineer, regarding the need for additional warning signs, does not create a triable issue of fact for a jury to determine since "[t]his is precisely the situation where Weiss controls and does not allow a battle of the experts” (Harford v City of New York, 194 AD2d 519, 520; see generally, Weiss v Fote, supra).

We find no merit to the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Drake v. County of Herkimer
15 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Affleck v. Buckley
276 A.D.2d 507 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 A.D.2d 472, 631 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrahams-v-town-of-brookhaven-nyappdiv-1995.