In Murphy v. De Revere (304 N.Y. 922), Nuss v. State of New York (301 N.Y. 768) and Van de Walker v. State of New York (278 N.Y. 454), the court was solely concerned with the defendant's liability for improper maintenance or operation of a traffic signal, not its planning or designing. And, in Eastman v. State of New York (303 N.Y. 691), although the suit seems to have been predicated, in part, on the State's negligence in planning an intersection without a stop sign, our affirmance rested on an entirely different theory.

In Murphy v. De Revere, 304 N.Y. 922, 110 N.E.2d 740 (1953) and Nuss v. State of New York, 301 N.Y. 768, 95 N.E.2d 822 (1950), "two cases involving night collisions at unfamiliar crossings[,] it was the very absence of the stop sign which rendered the drivers unaware of the need to stop before proceeding across the intersection" and proximately caused the accidents (Applebee, at 507, 127 N.E.2d 289).