Fiege v. State
| Decision Date | 11 January 1993 |
| Parties | Mary FIEGE, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Feldman & Kleidman, Fishkill (Robert F. Rich, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Peter H. Schiff and Siobhan Shanks, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILLER, RITTER and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.), entered August 6, 1990, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed her claim.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The State must maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition (see, Lopes v. Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617, 412 N.Y.S.2d 127, 384 N.E.2d 673; Freund v. State of New York, 137 A.D.2d 908, 524 N.Y.S.2d 575; Boyce Motor Lines v. State of New York, 280 App.Div. 693, 117 N.Y.S.2d 289, affd. 306 N.Y. 801, 118 N.E.2d 819; Lomnitz v. Town of Woodbury, 81 A.D.2d 828, 438 N.Y.S.2d 825). 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 (see, Freund v. State of New York, supra; Valentino v. State of New York, 62 A.D.2d 1086, 403 N.Y.S.2d 596). In this case, the Court of Claims properly found that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that the State affirmatively caused a dangerous condition, or that a recurrent dangerous condition existed in a specific area, of which the State had notice (see, Freund v. State of New York, supra, 137 A.D.2d at 909, 524 N.Y.S.2d 575; Rooney v. State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 159, 488 N.Y.S.2d 468; Kelly v. Town of Islip, 141 A.D.2d 611, 529 N.Y.S.2d 530; Bono v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.2d 885, 154 N.Y.S.2d 643, 136 N.E.2d 715).
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sullivan v. Bunnell
-
Farrell v. State
...283, 502 N.Y.S.2d 669, 493 N.E.2d 893; Lopes v. Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617, 623, 412 N.Y.S.2d 127, 384 N.E.2d 673; Fiege v. State of New York, 189 A.D.2d 748, 592 N.Y.S.2d 421). Constructive notice of a dangerous condition may not be established through the State's general awareness that debris ......
-
Timcoe v. State
...highways in a reasonably safe condition (see, Lopes v. Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617, 412 N.Y.S.2d 127, 384 N.E.2d 673; Fiege v. State of New York, 189 A.D.2d 748, 592 N.Y.S.2d 421; Freund v. State of New York, 137 A.D.2d 908, 524 N.Y.S.2d 575; Lomnitz v. Town of Woodbury, 81 A.D.2d 828, 438 N.Y.S.......
-
Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Sav.
... ... that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who in person or through an agent "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state". "It is a 'single act statute' and proof of one transaction in New York is ... ...