Domanova v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Farrell v. State of New York

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6996 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    We affirm. In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds "warranted by the facts," bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony ( Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; see DePaula v State of New York , 82 AD3d 827; Bryant v State of New York , 77 AD3d 875, 876; Stevens v State of New York, 47 AD3d 624, 625; Domanovav State of New York , 41 AD3d 633, 634). Here, the trial court's determination that the claimant failed to establish her claim to recover damages for personal injuries was warranted by the facts, and we decline to disturb it. Contrary to the claimant's contention, she failed to establish that the State breached its duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition ( see Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283; Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623; Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748). Constructive notice of a dangerous condition may not be established through the State's general awareness that debris may exist on the highway (see Hartv State of New York , 43 AD3d 524, 525).

  2. Depaula v. State

    82 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 29 times

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds "warranted by the facts," bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony ( Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; see Bryant v State of New York, 77 AD3d 875, 876; Stevens v State of New York, 47 AD3d 624, 625; Domanova v State of New York, 41 AD3d 633, 634). Here, the trial court's determination that the claimant failed to establish his claim to recover damages for malicious prosecution was warranted by the facts, and we decline to disturb it. Although the trial court largely credited the account of events given by the claimant and an independent witness, neither their testimony, nor the lack of probable cause for the claimant's arrest, compels the conclusion that a prior criminal proceeding was instituted "due to a wrong or improper motive, something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served" ( Nardelli v Stamberg, 44 NY2d 500, 503; see Martin v City of Albany, 42 NY2d 13, 17; Minasian v Lubow, 49 AD3d 1033, 1035; Arnold v Town of Wilton, 126 AD2d 135, 136-137).

  3. McGowan v. State

    79 A.D.3d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 14 times

    We reverse. In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds "warranted by the facts," bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses ( Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; see Stevens v State of New York, 47 AD3d 624, 624-625; Domanova v State of New York, 41 AD3d 633, 634; Emmi v State of New York, 143 AD2d 876, 878; Marren v State of New York, 142 AD2d 717, 718; Reavey v State of New York, 125 AD2d 656; Matter of Fasano v State of New York, 113 AD2d 885; McKenna v State of New York, 91 AD2d 1066; Telfair v State of New York, 87 AD2d 610). Here, the Court of Claims determined that the State bore no responsibility for McGowan's injuries.

  4. Stevens v. New York

    47 A.D.3d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 20 times

    The matter proceeded to a trial on the issue of liability, after which the Court of Claims dismissed the claim. In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds "warranted by the facts," bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses ( Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; see Domanova v State of New York, 41 AD3d 633, 634; Mastroianni v State of New York, 35 AD3d 674, 675). Here, the Court of Claims determined that the defendant bore no responsibility for the claimant's injuries.

  5. Pilato v. State

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51229 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2024)

    Such duty of care imposes upon drivers obligations to: maintain a safe rate of speed, keep their vehicle under reasonable control; be on a proper lookout under the conditions then prevailing to see and be aware of what is in their view; and use reasonable care to avoid accidents (National Interstate v A.J. Murphy Co., Inc., 9 A.D.3d 714, 716 [3d Dept 2004]; Woolley v Coppola, 179 A.D.2d 991, 992 [3d Dept 1992]; Oberman v Alexander's Rent-A-Car, 56 A.D.2d 814, 815 [1st Dept 1977]; lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 806 [1977]; see PJI 2:77; VTL ยงยง 1126 [a], 1163[a], [e], 1180[a], 1212). A driver has a common-law duty to see that which should have been seen through the proper use of his senses (Perez v State of New York, No. 2015-030-018 (Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., Nov. 10, 2015]; see Domanova v State of New York, 41 A.D.3d 633, 634 [2d Dept 2007]; Larsen v Spano, 35 A.D.3d 820, 822 [2d Dept 2006]; see also Barbieri v Vokoun, 72 A.D.3d 853, 856 [2d Dept 2010]).

  6. Perez v. State

    # 2015-030-018 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Nov. 10, 2015)

    Additionally, the driver has a common-law duty to see that which should have been seen through the proper use of his senses. SeeDomanova v State of New York, 41 AD3d 633, 634 (2d Dept 2007), Larsen v Spano, 35 AD3d 820, 822 (2d Dept 2006)see alsoBarbieri v Vokoun, 72 AD3d 853, 856 (2d Dept 2010).

  7. Roth v. State

    # 2012-045-502 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 21, 2012)

    However, it has also been established that the subject pothole was visible and apparent at the time of the accident. The accident occurred during daylight hours on a clear day. Claimant has a common-law duty to see that which she should have seen through the proper use of her senses (Domanova v State of New York, 41 AD3d 633 [2d Dept 2007]). Consequently, claimant's negligence was also a substantial factor in the happening of this accident.