Madtes v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madtes v. Town of Brookhaven

275 A.D.2d 442, 713 N.Y.S.2d 83, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8940

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

DecidedAugust 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 442 (Madtes v. Town of Brookhaven) 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

Madtes v. Town of Brookhaven, 275 A.D.2d 442, 713 N.Y.S.2d 83, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated March 18, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Suffolk County Water Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

[443]*443Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when a portion of Vidoni Drive in the Town of Brookhaven collapsed underneath her car. She contends that a fire hydrant, which was owned by the Suffolk County Water Authority (hereinafter the SCWA), was used by a contractor without the authorization of the SCWA, in connection with repairs being done on Route 25A which is adjacent to Vidoni Drive. The plaintiff contends that the contractor’s improper use of the hydrant undermined the roadway.

On its motion for summary judgment, the SCWA established, prima facie, that it had not issued any permits for use of the subject fire hydrant by construction companies and that it had no notice of the alleged unauthorized use of the hydrant. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court that, in the absence of an expert’s affidavit, the plaintiff’s claim that the SCWA created a dangerous condition by failing to install a locking device on the hydrant was entirely speculative (see, Mendes v Whitney-Floral Realty Corp., 216 AD2d 540). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and H. Miller, 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 order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated March 18, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Suffolk County Water Authority for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

[443]*443Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured when a portion of Vidoni Drive in the Town of Brookhaven collapsed underneath her car. She contends that a fire hydrant, which was owned by the Suffolk County Water Authority (hereinafter the SCWA), was used by a contractor without the authorization of the SCWA, in connection with repairs being done on Route 25A which is adjacent to Vidoni Drive. The plaintiff contends that the contractor’s improper use of the hydrant undermined the roadway.

On its motion for summary judgment, the SCWA established, prima facie, that it had not issued any permits for use of the subject fire hydrant by construction companies and that it had no notice of the alleged unauthorized use of the hydrant. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court that, in the absence of an expert’s affidavit, the plaintiff’s claim that the SCWA created a dangerous condition by failing to install a locking device on the hydrant was entirely speculative (see, Mendes v Whitney-Floral Realty Corp., 216 AD2d 540). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 442, 713 N.Y.S.2d 83, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madtes-v-town-of-brookhaven-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack