Carey v. State of New York

Opinion

Carey v State of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 05157

September 2, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Justin Carey, appellant,

v

State of New York, respondent. (Claim No. 136032)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 2, 2026

2024-07264

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

Deborah A. Dowling

Lourdes M. Ventura

Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.

Walker & Mackenzie, P.C. (Pollack Pollack Isaac & DeCicco, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac, Svetlana Walker, and Lori E. Parkman], of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Philip J. Levitz and Cleland B. Welton II of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Gina M. Lopez-Summa, J.), dated June 18, 2024. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In November 2020, the claimant allegedly was injured when he fell into an open manhole on Route 111 in Smithtown. Thereafter, the claimant commenced this claim against the State of New York, alleging that the State failed to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition. Following the completion of discovery, the State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim. In an order dated June 18, 2024, the Court of Claims granted the motion. The claimant appeals.

"The State has a nondelegable duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition, but it is not an insurer of the safety of its roads" (Buonincontro v State of New York, 241 AD3d 486, 488; see Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283). "'This obligation is not confined to vehicular traffic alone. The State must provide pedestrians with a reasonably safe place to travel'" (Sklavonitis v State of New York, 236 AD3d 957, 958, quoting Way v State of New York, 94 AD2d 857, 859; see Sanford v State of New York, 94 AD2d 857, 859). "The duty to provide pedestrians with a reasonably safe place to travel extends to the foreseeable uses of a roadway by a pedestrian, and 'the State . . . is not liable for injuries sustained outside of the traveled or commonly used portions of its public ways'" (Sklavonitis v State of New York, 236 AD3d at 958, quoting Tennessee v State of New York, 280 AD 640, 641).

The Court of Claims properly determined that the State did not have a duty to ensure that the subject area was safe for the claimant (see id. at 958; Hamilton v State of New York, 277 AD2d 982, 983-984). Here, when the claimant fell into the manhole, he was not at an intersection or a designated crosswalk. The State established, prima facie, that it was not foreseeable that a pedestrian would walk in the area of the roadway wherein the claimant fell, and thus, the State had no duty to ensure that the subject area was safe for the claimant (see Sklavonitis v State of New York, [*2]236 AD3d at 958). In opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the State's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

In light of the foregoing, the parties' remaining contentions either need not be reached or are without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court