From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tiperneni v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 4, 1986
119 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

April 4, 1986

Appeal from the Court of Claims, Moriarty, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and matter remitted to Court of Claims for a trial on the issue of damages only. Memorandum: Claimant suffered a broken hip on September 6, 1981 when she tripped and fell while crossing a pedestrian bridge from the parking area to Prospect Point State Park in Niagara Falls, New York. She filed a notice of claim seeking to recover damages for personal injuries, claiming that the State was negligent "in failing to properly maintain the surface of said pedestrian walkway bridge in a safe manner, free from holes and ruts which were capable of causing persons using said bridge to trip, fall and sustain severe and permanent personal injuries."

At a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability only, the State acknowledged it owned and maintained the area. It conceded that there existed a seam or crack but contended that the condition "that existed was not a dangerous condition." The proof indicates that the seam or break in the blacktop covering an expansion joint of the pedestrian walkway was approximately three inches wide and two inches deep and, in the opinion of claimant's expert witness, would constitute a "hazard", especially on the downward slope of the pedestrian bridge. There is also evidence that maintenance personnel observed the seam prior to the date of the accident. Such unrefuted proof is sufficient to establish a cause of action for negligence (see, Foster v. City of New York, 6 N.Y.2d 852; Loughran v. City of New York, 298 N.Y. 320; Smith v City of New York, 38 A.D.2d 965, 966; Lane v. City of New York, 32 A.D.2d 838; Monllas v. City of New York, 27 A.D.2d 722). Since it could reasonably have been foreseen that the crack or seam in the blacktop covering the expansion joint on the pedestrian bridge would cause an accident, the Court of Claims erred in concluding that liability could not be predicated upon this condition (see, Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233; Loughran v. City of New York, supra). Furthermore, the record does not support any finding that this accident resulted in any degree from claimant's own culpable conduct.


Summaries of

Tiperneni v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 4, 1986
119 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Tiperneni v. State

Case Details

Full title:VASUMATHAMMA TIPERNENI, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent…

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

Date published: Apr 4, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)