Timcoe v. State

• Decision Date: 20 December 1999
• Citation: 699 N.Y.S.2d 730
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,955 Barbara TIMCOE, et al., appellants, v. STATE of New York, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 730

699 N.Y.S.2d 730

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,955

Barbara TIMCOE, et al., appellants, v. STATE of New York, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 20, 1999.

Monteleone & Monteleone, Mount Kisco, N.Y. (Tara Koenig Monteleone of counsel), for appellants.

Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney-General, Albany, N.Y. (Peter H. Schiff and Michael S. Buskus of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated October 1, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the 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; 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.2d 825; 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). That ice, snow, or water is present on a roadway at the time of an automobile accident does not, by itself, establish negligence on the part of the State (see, Fiege v. State of New York, supra; 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 claimants failed to meet their burden of proving that the State breached its duty to reasonably patrol the roadways, that the State affirmatively caused a dangerous condition, or that the State had actual or constructive notice thereof (see, Fiege v. State of New York, supra; Freund v. State of New York, supra, 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; cf., Bono v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.2d 885, 154 N.Y.S.2d 643, 136 N.E.2d 715).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.