Hayden v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayden v. Ward

283 A.D.2d 942, 723 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4523

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

DecidedMay 2, 2001

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 942 (Hayden v. Ward) 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

Hayden v. Ward, 283 A.D.2d 942, 723 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Town of Ellicottville dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motions of defendant Town of Ellicottville (Town) for summary judgment dismissing the complaints against it. Molly Hayden, the daughter of plaintiffs in appeal No. 1 and the subrogee of plaintiff in appeal No. 2, was injured when she attempted to cross a road at an intersection at night and was struck by a vehicle. Plaintiffs alleged that the Town was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting at the intersection. A municipality “generally is required to [install street lighting] only in certain situations where it is necessary to keep the street safe, i.e., where there is a defect or some unusual condition rendering the street unsafe to the traveling public” (Thompson v City of New York, 78 NY2d 682, 684, rearg denied 79 NY2d 916; see, Highway Law § 327; see also, Abbott v County of Nassau, 223 AD2d 662). In this case, plaintiffs failed to allege in the complaint that a defect or unusual condition existed at the intersection, nor did they submit evidence of such a defect or unusual condition in opposition to the Town’s motions (see, Cracas v Zisko, 204 AD2d 382, 383-384; cf., Graham v City of Rochester, 184 AD2d 990, 991-992). Plaintiffs’ allegation “that the accident site was dark is insufficient to establish the existence of [a duty to install street lighting] on the Town” (Cracas v Zisko, supra, at 383). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Town of Ellicottville dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motions of defendant Town of Ellicottville (Town) for summary judgment dismissing the complaints against it. Molly Hayden, the daughter of plaintiffs in appeal No. 1 and the subrogee of plaintiff in appeal No. 2, was injured when she attempted to cross a road at an intersection at night and was struck by a vehicle. Plaintiffs alleged that the Town was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting at the intersection. A municipality “generally is required to [install street lighting] only in certain situations where it is necessary to keep the street safe, i.e., where there is a defect or some unusual condition rendering the street unsafe to the traveling public” (Thompson v City of New York, 78 NY2d 682, 684, rearg denied 79 NY2d 916; see, Highway Law § 327; see also, Abbott v County of Nassau, 223 AD2d 662). In this case, plaintiffs failed to allege in the complaint that a defect or unusual condition existed at the intersection, nor did they submit evidence of such a defect or unusual condition in opposition to the Town’s motions (see, Cracas v Zisko, 204 AD2d 382, 383-384; cf., Graham v City of Rochester, 184 AD2d 990, 991-992). Plaintiffs’ allegation “that the accident site was dark is insufficient to establish the existence of [a duty to install street lighting] on the Town” (Cracas v Zisko, supra, at 383). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 942, 723 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-ward-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack