From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sinski v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted September 5, 2000

October 10, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered April 20, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant County of Suffolk for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) so much of an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, entered April 22, 1999, as, inter alia, granted the same relief.

David K. Lieb, P.C., Center Moriches, N.Y. (Andrea L. Thompson of counsel), for appellant.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order and judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order and judgment was superseded by the amended order and judgment; and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when her car collided with two other vehicles at the intersection of the State-controlled exit ramp of Route 27 with Eastport Manor Road in Brookhaven, a road controlled by the defendant County of Suffolk. The plaintiff, traveling on the exit ramp, failed to obey a stop sign at the intersection with the County road. The plaintiff's car was hit by cars traveling on the County road whose drivers did not see the plaintiff entering the intersection in time to avert the collisions.

In opposing the County's prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise triable issues of fact as to the County's alleged negligence in designing or maintaining the County road (see, Fitzrandolph v. Rodrigue, 205 A.D.2d 496; Cannistra v. Town of Putnam Val., 177 A.D.2d 536; DiCupe v. City of New York, 167 A.D.2d 442, citing Weiss v. Fote, 7 N.Y.2d 579, 589; Rodriguez v. County of Suffolk, 123 A.D.2d 754). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant County of Suffolk.


Summaries of

Sinski v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Sinski v. Town of Brookhaven

Case Details

Full title:TERESA ANN SINSKI, APPELLANT, v. TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS…

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

Date published: Oct 10, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 688

Citing Cases

Sinski v. State

The State of New York is not an insurer of the safety of its roads and no liability will attach unless the…

McKinney v. Smith-Frawley

Consequently, the County's purported negligence cannot be said to be a proximate cause of the subject…