Colgan v. Town of Hillsdale

New York Court of Appeals

Colgan v. Town of Hillsdale

498 N.E.2d 419, 68 N.Y.2d 788, 506 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20098

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 498 N.E.2d 419 (Colgan v. Town of Hillsdale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colgan v. Town of Hillsdale, 498 N.E.2d 419, 68 N.Y.2d 788, 506 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20098 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the defendant town’s motion for summary judgment denied.

Although municipalities have no duty to preserve the lateral support to adjacent land in the construction and maintenance of highways and roads (Radcliff’s Executors v Mayor, 4 NY 195, 203; see, New York Steam Co. v Foundation Co., 195 NY 43, 50), municipalities are liable for damages to adjoining property proximately caused by their negligence in construction and maintenance (Radcliff’s Executors v Mayor, supra; Vanguard Tours v Town of Yorktown, 83 AD2d 866). Since factual issues exist concerning the defendant’s conduct in maintaining the drainage ditches and backslope adjacent to plaintiffs’ property, summary judgment is inappropriate (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; cf. Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092, 1093).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, [790]*790Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the defendant town’s motion for summary judgment denied.

Although municipalities have no duty to preserve the lateral support to adjacent land in the construction and maintenance of highways and roads (Radcliff’s Executors v Mayor, 4 NY 195, 203; see, New York Steam Co. v Foundation Co., 195 NY 43, 50), municipalities are liable for damages to adjoining property proximately caused by their negligence in construction and maintenance (Radcliff’s Executors v Mayor, supra; Vanguard Tours v Town of Yorktown, 83 AD2d 866). Since factual issues exist concerning the defendant’s conduct in maintaining the drainage ditches and backslope adjacent to plaintiffs’ property, summary judgment is inappropriate (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; cf. Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 NY2d 1092, 1093).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, [790]*790Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 N.E.2d 419, 68 N.Y.2d 788, 506 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colgan-v-town-of-hillsdale-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack