Travalino v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Travalino v. State

203 A.D.2d 276, 609 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3250

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

DecidedApril 4, 1994

DocketClaim No. 78887

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 276 (Travalino 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

Travalino v. State, 203 A.D.2d 276, 609 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Bell, J.), dated February 25, 1992, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of liability only, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"It is well established that the State is not an insurer of the safety of its roads and no liability will attach unless the ascribed negligence of the State in maintaining its roads in a reasonable condition is a proximate cause of the accident” (Andrews v State of New York, 168 AD2d 474, 475; see also, Stanford v State of New York, 167 AD2d 381). Contrary to the claimants’ contention, the photographic evidence does not clearly establish that the centerlines had been obscured. Moreover, the evidence does not support the claimants’ theory that the lack of visible lines produced disorientation and caused the injured claimant to drive his vehicle off the roadway into a utility pole. Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Claims that the claimants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the condition of the roadway was the cause of the accident (see, Andrews v State of New York, supra). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Hart and Florio, 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, the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Bell, J.), dated February 25, 1992, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of liability only, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"It is well established that the State is not an insurer of the safety of its roads and no liability will attach unless the ascribed negligence of the State in maintaining its roads in a reasonable condition is a proximate cause of the accident” (Andrews v State of New York, 168 AD2d 474, 475; see also, Stanford v State of New York, 167 AD2d 381). Contrary to the claimants’ contention, the photographic evidence does not clearly establish that the centerlines had been obscured. Moreover, the evidence does not support the claimants’ theory that the lack of visible lines produced disorientation and caused the injured claimant to drive his vehicle off the roadway into a utility pole. Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Claims that the claimants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the condition of the roadway was the cause of the accident (see, Andrews v State of New York, supra). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 276, 609 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travalino-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack