Colyer v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colyer v. State

208 A.D.2d 490, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9321

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

DocketClaim No. 84752

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 490 (Colyer 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

Colyer v. State, 208 A.D.2d 490, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals as limited by its brief from an interlocutory judgment of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated March 26, 1993, which, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the extent of finding that the defendant was twenty-five percent at fault in the happening of the accident.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the claimant established that the use of the speed bump as a traffic control device created an unreasonably dangerous condition in the roadway and was a proximate cause of the claimant’s injuries. Therefore the court properly determined that the defendant was partially at fault in the happening of the accident. Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals as limited by its brief from an interlocutory judgment of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), dated March 26, 1993, which, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the extent of finding that the defendant was twenty-five percent at fault in the happening of the accident.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the claimant established that the use of the speed bump as a traffic control device created an unreasonably dangerous condition in the roadway and was a proximate cause of the claimant’s injuries. Therefore the court properly determined that the defendant was partially at fault in the happening of the accident. Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 490, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colyer-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack