Gerhart v. Town of Manchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gerhart v. Town of Manchester

112 A.D.2d 32, 491 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50669

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 32 (Gerhart v. Town of Manchester) 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

Gerhart v. Town of Manchester, 112 A.D.2d 32, 491 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: As plaintiff was traveling around a "sharp” curve in a highway in the Town of Hopewell, his motorcycle collided with a truck approaching from the opposite direction. On this appeal from an order denying its motion for summary judgment, defendant town argues that plaintiff has failed to show that the town was negligent and that its negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the accident. This argument places the burden in a summary judgment motion upon the wrong party. "A defendant moving for summary judgment must first present evidence establishing that plaintiff has no cause of action before the plaintiff is called upon to present evidence raising a question of fact” (Hayes v Riccardi, 97 AD2d 954; see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Here, since defendant has not demonstrated that the roadway was reasonably safe for motorists or that any unsafe condition was not the proximate cause of the accident, plaintiff was not obliged, on this motion, to submit evidence establishing his case.

We reject defendant’s contention that the Statute of Limitations bars any claim for negligent design of the highway. (Appeal [33]*33from order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Contiguglia, J.— summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: As plaintiff was traveling around a "sharp” curve in a highway in the Town of Hopewell, his motorcycle collided with a truck approaching from the opposite direction. On this appeal from an order denying its motion for summary judgment, defendant town argues that plaintiff has failed to show that the town was negligent and that its negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the accident. This argument places the burden in a summary judgment motion upon the wrong party. "A defendant moving for summary judgment must first present evidence establishing that plaintiff has no cause of action before the plaintiff is called upon to present evidence raising a question of fact” (Hayes v Riccardi, 97 AD2d 954; see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853). Here, since defendant has not demonstrated that the roadway was reasonably safe for motorists or that any unsafe condition was not the proximate cause of the accident, plaintiff was not obliged, on this motion, to submit evidence establishing his case.

We reject defendant’s contention that the Statute of Limitations bars any claim for negligent design of the highway. (Appeal [33]*33from order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Contiguglia, J.— summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 32, 491 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerhart-v-town-of-manchester-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack