From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 2005
17 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-06097.

April 25, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant County of Suffolk appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated July 1, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Ann K. Kandel of counsel), for appellant.

Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener Grossman, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Howard Eison of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant County of Suffolk.

The plaintiffs were injured when a truck running a red light crashed into their car as it was entering into the intersection of Washington Avenue and the Long Island Expressway's South Service Road in Brentwood.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant County of Suffolk was negligent in failing to trim the foliage growing along the side of Washington Avenue, and that the overgrown brush obstructed the view of the plaintiff driver.

A county is not the insurer of the safety of its roads, and "no liability will attach unless the ascribed negligence of the [county] in maintaining its roads in a reasonable condition is a proximate cause of the accident" ( Stanford v. State of New York, 167 AD2d 381, 382; see Tomassi v. Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97). Here, the record shows that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the other driver's failure to stop at the red light, which, indisputably, was not obstructed by the overgrown brush. Thus, under the circumstances, the County's purported negligence cannot be deemed a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries ( see Green v. Mower, 100 NY2d 529; Sinski v. State of New York, 2 AD3d 517; Tishler v. Town of Brookhaven, 205 AD2d 611, 612). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the County's motion for summary judgment.

In light of our determination, the parties' remaining contentions have been rendered academic.


Summaries of

Martinez v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 2005
17 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Martinez v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:FABIAN MARTINEZ et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Appellant, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 25, 2005

Citations

17 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
794 N.Y.S.2d 98

Citing Cases

Feeney v. Holeman

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants Town of Brookhaven and County of Suffolk…

Noorzi v. State

The Court also finds that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the State adequately considered its…