Citta v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citta v. State

30 A.D.2d 636, 290 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4004

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

DecidedMay 16, 1968

DocketClaim No. 36918

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 636 (Citta v. State) 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

Citta v. State, 30 A.D.2d 636, 290 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: Shortly after 10:00 p.m. on the day of the accident claimant’s automobile skidded on ice and collided with a car traveling in the opposite direction while crossing a State bridge. At 7:40 p.m. the State had received actual notice that ice on the bridge created a dangerous condition. There was no ice on the highway approaching the bridge. [637]*637The State did nothing to remedy such condition or to warn users of the highway of the existing condition. In these circumstances we do not consider the two cases cited by the trial court as authorities for dismissing the claim. Furthermore, the State’s maintenance man was not available to testify and errors were committed in receiving over objection certain hearsay testimony as well as conclusions of the witness. All concur, except Williams, P. J., who dissents and votes to affirm. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing claim for damages for personal injuries and property damage to automobile.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: Shortly after 10:00 p.m. on the day of the accident claimant’s automobile skidded on ice and collided with a car traveling in the opposite direction while crossing a State bridge. At 7:40 p.m. the State had received actual notice that ice on the bridge created a dangerous condition. There was no ice on the highway approaching the bridge. [637]*637The State did nothing to remedy such condition or to warn users of the highway of the existing condition. In these circumstances we do not consider the two cases cited by the trial court as authorities for dismissing the claim. Furthermore, the State’s maintenance man was not available to testify and errors were committed in receiving over objection certain hearsay testimony as well as conclusions of the witness. All concur, except Williams, P. J., who dissents and votes to affirm. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing claim for damages for personal injuries and property damage to automobile.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 636, 290 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citta-v-state-nyappdiv-1968.