Sideris v. Town of Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sideris v. Town of Huntington

207 A.D.2d 538, 616 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8607

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

DecidedAugust 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 538 (Sideris v. Town of Huntington) 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

Sideris v. Town of Huntington, 207 A.D.2d 538, 616 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (New-mark, J.), dated September 28, 1992, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the second and third affirmative defenses and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that the prior written notice [539]*539laws are a defense to the claim that the road where the fatal accident occurred should have been paved with a different surface is without merit (see, Town Law § 65-a [1]; Town Code of Town of Huntington § 173-18, Hughes v Jahoda, 75 NY2d 881). In addition, the contention that the Town was entitled to summary judgment because it followed a highway safety plan is without merit as there are questions of fact, inter alia, as to the reasonableness of the delay in formulating the plan, and the reasonableness of the delay in resurfacing the road (see, Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460; Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271). Bracken, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (New-mark, J.), dated September 28, 1992, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the second and third affirmative defenses and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that the prior written notice [539]*539laws are a defense to the claim that the road where the fatal accident occurred should have been paved with a different surface is without merit (see, Town Law § 65-a [1]; Town Code of Town of Huntington § 173-18, Hughes v Jahoda, 75 NY2d 881). In addition, the contention that the Town was entitled to summary judgment because it followed a highway safety plan is without merit as there are questions of fact, inter alia, as to the reasonableness of the delay in formulating the plan, and the reasonableness of the delay in resurfacing the road (see, Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460; Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271). Bracken, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 538, 616 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sideris-v-town-of-huntington-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack