Holland v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holland v. County of Monroe

126 A.D.2d 975, 511 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42096

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 975 (Holland v. County of Monroe) 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

Holland v. County of Monroe, 126 A.D.2d 975, 511 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff Judith Holland sustained injuries when struck by a branch which fell from a tree on property owned by defendant county. The county has a duty to maintain trees on its property and to establish reasonable inspection procedures to detect dangerous conditions (see, Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41 NY2d 446, 448; Diamond v State of New York, 53 AD2d 958, appeal dismissed 40 NY2d 969). Questions of fact being [976]*976present as to the existence of a reasonable inspection procedure and defendant’s actual or constructive notice of this dangerous condition, summary judgment was properly denied.

All concur, except Doerr and Boomer, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion in the following memorandum.

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

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff Judith Holland sustained injuries when struck by a branch which fell from a tree on property owned by defendant county. The county has a duty to maintain trees on its property and to establish reasonable inspection procedures to detect dangerous conditions (see, Harris v Village of E. Hills, 41 NY2d 446, 448; Diamond v State of New York, 53 AD2d 958, appeal dismissed 40 NY2d 969). Questions of fact being [976]*976present as to the existence of a reasonable inspection procedure and defendant’s actual or constructive notice of this dangerous condition, summary judgment was properly denied.

All concur, except Doerr and Boomer, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and grant the motion in the following memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 975, 511 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-county-of-monroe-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack