Blum v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blum v. State

202 A.D.2d 538, 610 N.Y.S.2d 813

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 1994·No. Claim No. 80413·Published

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for, inter alia, wrongful death, the claimants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Court of Claims (Silver-man, J.), dated October 17, 1991, as dismissed the claim, and the State of New York cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as dismissed its counterclaims.

Ordered that the cross-appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent-appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

We find that the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim on the merits for failure to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that there was a dangerous condition in the eastbound lane of Route 25 which caused the accident at issue (see, Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748).

The claimants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases], 188 AD2d 214, affd 82 NY2d 821; Richardson, Evidence § 538, at 531 [Prince 10th ed]) or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for, inter alia, wrongful death, the claimants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Court of Claims (Silver-man, J.), dated October 17, 1991, as dismissed the claim, and the State of New York cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as dismissed its counterclaims.

Ordered that the cross-appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent-appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

We find that the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim on the merits for failure to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that there was a dangerous condition in the eastbound lane of Route 25 which caused the accident at issue (see, Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748).

The claimants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases], 188 AD2d 214, affd 82 NY2d 821; Richardson, Evidence § 538, at 531 [Prince 10th ed]) or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Blum v. State, 202 A.D.2d 538, 610 N.Y.S.2d 813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

202 A.D.2d 538 (Blum v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related