Claim of Rouse v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Rouse v. State

97 A.D.2d 962

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1983

DocketClaim No. 62386

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 962 (Claim of Rouse 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

Claim of Rouse v. State, 97 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The State appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that it was negligent for failing to remove stone and gravel from the side of a section of an interstate highway where claimant was injured while-riding his motorcycle. Since the State created the hazardous condition by placing the stone and gravel on the highway two weeks prior to the accident, claimant was not required to establish notice as a prerequisite for recovery (see Muszynski v City of Buffalo, 29 NY2d 810, affg on opn below 33 AD2d 648). There is ample support in the record for the trial court’s findings that the State was negligent, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of claimant’s injuries. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Moriarty, J. — negligence.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The State appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that it was negligent for failing to remove stone and gravel from the side of a section of an interstate highway where claimant was injured while-riding his motorcycle. Since the State created the hazardous condition by placing the stone and gravel on the highway two weeks prior to the accident, claimant was not required to establish notice as a prerequisite for recovery (see Muszynski v City of Buffalo, 29 NY2d 810, affg on opn below 33 AD2d 648). There is ample support in the record for the trial court’s findings that the State was negligent, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of claimant’s injuries. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Moriarty, J. — negligence.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rouse-v-state-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack