Carrillo v. County of Rockland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carrillo v. County of Rockland

11 A.D.3d 575, 782 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12174

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 575 (Carrillo v. County of Rockland) 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

Carrillo v. County of Rockland, 11 A.D.3d 575, 782 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant County of Rockland appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), entered October 22, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs decedent was operating his motor vehicle on Washington Street in the Village of Tappan in Rockland County when he lost control and the vehicle left the road and struck a tree. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant County of Rockland was based, inter alia, on the County’s failure to replace a guardrail which had been removed from the area several years earlier.

A municipality has a duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition (see Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]; Finn v Town of Southampton, 289 AD2d 285 [2001]). This duty extends to furnishing safe [576]*576guardrails (see Lattanzi v State of New York, 53 NY2d 1045 [1981]; Galvin v State of New York, 245 AD2d 418 [1997]). Pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine, however, “liability for injury arising out of the operation of a duly executed highway safety plan may only be predicated on proof that the plan either was evolved without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis” (Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 589 [1960]; see Friedman v State of New York, supra; Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 466 [1984]; Galvin v State of New York, supra). Under the circumstances of this case, there are questions of fact as to whether the County’s decision to not replace the guardrail was based upon an adequate study (see Scheemaker v State of New York, 70 NY2d 985 [1988]; Sideris v Town of Huntington, 207 AD2d 538 [1994]; Bounauito v Floyd School Dist., 203 AD2d 225 [1994]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant County of Rockland appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), entered October 22, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs decedent was operating his motor vehicle on Washington Street in the Village of Tappan in Rockland County when he lost control and the vehicle left the road and struck a tree. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant County of Rockland was based, inter alia, on the County’s failure to replace a guardrail which had been removed from the area several years earlier.

A municipality has a duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition (see Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]; Finn v Town of Southampton, 289 AD2d 285 [2001]). This duty extends to furnishing safe [576]*576guardrails (see Lattanzi v State of New York, 53 NY2d 1045 [1981]; Galvin v State of New York, 245 AD2d 418 [1997]). Pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine, however, “liability for injury arising out of the operation of a duly executed highway safety plan may only be predicated on proof that the plan either was evolved without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis” (Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 589 [1960]; see Friedman v State of New York, supra; Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 466 [1984]; Galvin v State of New York, supra). Under the circumstances of this case, there are questions of fact as to whether the County’s decision to not replace the guardrail was based upon an adequate study (see Scheemaker v State of New York, 70 NY2d 985 [1988]; Sideris v Town of Huntington, 207 AD2d 538 [1994]; Bounauito v Floyd School Dist., 203 AD2d 225 [1994]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 575, 782 N.Y.S.2d 668, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrillo-v-county-of-rockland-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack