Portnoy v. State

21 Misc. 2d 513, 198 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3397
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 16, 1960
DocketClaim No. 34282
StatusPublished

This text of 21 Misc. 2d 513 (Portnoy v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Portnoy v. State, 21 Misc. 2d 513, 198 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3397 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Opinion

Alexander Del Giorno, J.

This is a claim to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the four claimants and for property damage to the motor vehicle owned by claimants Mittenberg and Galperin, as a result of the alleged negligence of the State.

On the trial, an order was made on motion amending the claim as to claimant Hyman Portnoy, so as to make him a claimant in his name in an individual capacity, since he had attained his majority subsequent to the filing of the claim. Further, in view of the fact that claimant Mittenberg was not available on the trial, both sides agreed, and the court so ordered, that the claim of Mittenberg as to personal injuries be dismissed.

Claimants Mittenberg and Galperin were the owners of a 1949 Oldsmobile Sedan which was being operated by claimant Ludmerer on June 26, 1955. Galperin was in the front seat alongside Ludmerer, Portnoy was seated in the left rear and Mittenberg in the right rear.

At about 7:00 p.m., on that day, the automobile was proceeding to Montieello, in a southerly direction on Route 42. When it reached a point on Route 42 about one-half mile south of Kiamesha, at which location there is a left curve on the roadway, the car swerved and the driver applied his brakes and skidded, the car leaving the roadway, knocking down a stanchion and coming to rest in a ditch farther ahead. At the point where the left curve occurs, there is a side dirt road, which meets to the right of but does not cross Route 42.

[514]*514Claimant Portnoy testified that immediately before the accident, he heard the sound of pebbles and sand striking against the car, and that after the accident, when he was in a position half in and half out of the car, he saw on Route 42 sand and small stones extending two to three feet onto Route 42. This came from the dirt road which he said was at a higher level. Two weeks before the accident, he had been walking along the road and claims to have seen this same condition at that time. On cross-examination, he testified that there was a tire mark on the dirt over the paved portion of Route 42; that there was dirt thick enough to cover the paved portion, although he could not state the thickness thereof.

Claimant Ludmerer, the driver of the car, testified that at the left turn, where the road veers sharply, he felt the car swerve, applied the brake and skidded. At that time, he claimed, his speed was about 30 miles per hour. On cross-examination, he stated that he had driven on Route 42 during one or two week ends in May and each preceding week end in June, 1955, and that he was fully familiar with the road; that he saw the double white line on Route 42 when he was going around the curve; that neither the front right nor the rear right wheel went into the shoulder of the road. Before the car skidded, he did not see anything on the road, nor indeed did he take notice of the road. He spoke to a State Trooper at the hospital, and told him there was sand on the road. He denied, however, that at the same time he had told the trooper he was going too fast to make the curve. After the skidding the car went ahead in a straight line with the paved Route 42 before the curve started, knocking down a road stanchion, the car overturning and landing in a ditch some 30 feet past the curve. In his accident report claimant stated: “ Car #1 proceeding on Route 42 traveling from Kiamesha to Monticello. Car made wide turn on curve in road caused rear wheel to strike soft shoulder. Car skidded into stakes on side of road. Car turned over out of control. No warning signs.”

Claimant Galperin was dozing in the front seat and could not testify as to the manner in which the accident happened.

Elmer R. Winterberger, an assistant civil engineer employed by the State, called as a witness for claimants, testified that he works on safety; that he is familiar with Route 42 and the scene of the accident; that he inspected this road every two and one-half to five months; that a “ pile ” of dirt would be a hazard, but not the mere presence of some dirt; that when the surface of the road is dry, sand 6 to 10 inches high would be a hazard; that the existence of a hazardous condition would be [515]*515dependent on all the circumstances and that the fact that a road was straight or curved would have no bearing; that the curve involved here is “ reasonably sharp ”; that the side road running into Route 42 slopes down 5 or 6 feet but then goes up and is the same level as Route 42 at the intersection; that cars coming into Route 42 from the side road would not bring down sand and gravel on the pavement of Route 42. He stated that when he made his inspections, he saw no dirt.

Mr. Winterberger testified that there had been other accidents in this general location, and recounted the circumstances thereof from his records which circumstances indicated altogether different conditions. The State moved to strike this testimony from the record upon the ground that the conditions prevailing when those accidents occurred were not the same as the conditions existing at the time of this accident. Decision on this motion was reserved.

Claimant then rested, and the State moved to dismiss on the grounds that claimant had not presented a prima facie case, that the State had neither actual nor constructive notice of the conditions of the road; that the negligence of the driver is imputable to the owner; the State further moved for dismissal of the property damage claim of Mittenberg on all of these grounds. Decision thereon was reserved.

On behalf of the State, Michael J. Mahoney, State Trooper, testified that on the date of the accident, he was patrolling Route 42 from Monticello to Woodburn from 12 noon to 8:00 p.m., that he patrolled the area in question three or four times, and saw no sand or gravel in the road before the occurrence of the accident. He arrived at the scene at 7:30 p.m;., having received a call, and, finding claimants had gone to the hospital, went there. He testified further that Ludmerer said to him: “I guess I was going too fast for the turn”, and that he made an official report. The report he made, however, does not indicate affirmatively, in the appropriate box to be marked, that such was the case, the box being unmarked. On cross-examination, he stated that the car was at rest about 100 feet from the side road. While he was at the scene of the accident, he stood at the intersection in order to assist the tow truck, and saw nothing on the macadam road. The guard posts had been struck by the car. He testified further that there was a Reverse Curve sign to the north of the curve, and two large arrows just north of the side road which indicated a left turn, which could be seen from 500 to 1,000 feet north of the side road. The Reverse Curve sign indicated a speed of 35 miles per hour, and was about 200 to 300 feet north of the side road. He looked for but did not find [516]*516any skid or tire marks on the road. He did see the marks on the dirt where the car left the road. Although his report indicates the curve was sharp, he testified that it was a sweeping curve, 300 feet long and that the road is 22 feet wide.

State’s witness, Robert Miller, a manager of an auto sales company and a photographer, testified that on the day of the accident, between 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., he took photographs of the automobile after the accident. He testified that he walked from his own car where he had parked it to a point 50 to 60 feet north of the side road. At the intersection he saw no foreign matter on the paved road.

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

Related

Tomasetti v. State
283 A.D. 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)
Tomasetti v. State
203 Misc. 297 (New York State Court of Claims, 1952)
Harford v. State of New York
19 Misc. 2d 7 (New York State Court of Claims, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Misc. 2d 513, 198 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portnoy-v-state-nyclaimsct-1960.