Griffin v. Village of Southampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griffin v. Village of Southampton

206 A.D.2d 504, 615 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7622

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

DecidedJuly 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 504 (Griffin v. Village of Southampton) 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

Griffin v. Village of Southampton, 206 A.D.2d 504, 615 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an [505]*505order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated February 17, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a municipality’s duty to install and maintain street lighting is limited to situations where lighting is required to avoid dangerous and potentially hazardous conditions (see, Thompson v City of New York, 78 NY2d 682, 684; Cracas v Zisko, 204 AD2d 382). Here, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the streetlight outage created such a condition in the parking lot in question (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 518-519; Smith v Fishkill Health-Related Ctr., 184 AD2d 963, 965). The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an [505]*505order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated February 17, 1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a municipality’s duty to install and maintain street lighting is limited to situations where lighting is required to avoid dangerous and potentially hazardous conditions (see, Thompson v City of New York, 78 NY2d 682, 684; Cracas v Zisko, 204 AD2d 382). Here, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the streetlight outage created such a condition in the parking lot in question (see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 NY2d 507, 518-519; Smith v Fishkill Health-Related Ctr., 184 AD2d 963, 965). The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 504, 615 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-village-of-southampton-nyappdiv-1994.