Steele v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steele v. Town of Hempstead

266 A.D.2d 451, 698 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12028

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 451 (Steele v. Town of Hempstead) 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

Steele v. Town of Hempstead, 266 A.D.2d 451, 698 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated September 28, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly granted the defendants’ motion for sum[452]*452mary judgment dismissing the complaint. The roadway on which the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained his injuries was under construction. The fact that its condition was open, obvious, and readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses (see, Ackermann v Town of Fishkill, 201 AD2d 441; Laluna v DGM Partners, 234 AD2d 519; Paulo v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 233 AD2d 380) precludes a finding of liability based on the alleged failure to post warnings.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated September 28, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly granted the defendants’ motion for sum[452]*452mary judgment dismissing the complaint. The roadway on which the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained his injuries was under construction. The fact that its condition was open, obvious, and readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses (see, Ackermann v Town of Fishkill, 201 AD2d 441; Laluna v DGM Partners, 234 AD2d 519; Paulo v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 233 AD2d 380) precludes a finding of liability based on the alleged failure to post warnings.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 451, 698 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-town-of-hempstead-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack