Sellitto v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sellitto v. State

250 A.D.2d 754, 672 N.Y.S.2d 253

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

DocketClaim No. 82923

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 754 (Sellitto v. State) 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

Sellitto v. State, 250 A.D.2d 754, 672 N.Y.S.2d 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated May 5, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed their claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“The State must maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition * * * That ice, snow, or water is present on the roadway at the time of an automobile accident does not, by itself, establish negligence on the part of the State” (Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748, 749). The State “ ‘may be held liable for injuries arising by reason of isolated patches of ice where the State had notice of a recurrent condition in a specific area and failed to post warning signs or sand the road surface to correct the condition once it developed’ ” (Rooney v State of New York, 111 AD2d 159, 160). In this case the Court of Claims properly found that the claimants failed to meet their burden of proving that the State affirmatively caused a dangerous cbndition, or that a recurrent dangerous condition existed in a specific area, of which the State had notice.

The claimants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated May 5, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed their claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“The State must maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition * * * That ice, snow, or water is present on the roadway at the time of an automobile accident does not, by itself, establish negligence on the part of the State” (Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748, 749). The State “ ‘may be held liable for injuries arising by reason of isolated patches of ice where the State had notice of a recurrent condition in a specific area and failed to post warning signs or sand the road surface to correct the condition once it developed’ ” (Rooney v State of New York, 111 AD2d 159, 160). In this case the Court of Claims properly found that the claimants failed to meet their burden of proving that the State affirmatively caused a dangerous cbndition, or that a recurrent dangerous condition existed in a specific area, of which the State had notice.

The claimants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 754, 672 N.Y.S.2d 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sellitto-v-state-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack