Opinion
July 15, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant County of Onondaga (County) failed to preserve for review its argument that, pursuant to Weiss v. Fote ( 7 N.Y.2d 579, rearg denied 8 N.Y.2d 934 ), the doctrine of qualified municipal immunity applies to bar recovery against it. The County argues for the first time on appeal that plaintiff failed to establish that its decision not to post reduced speed signs on the subject portion of Lafayette Road was the result of an inadequate study or that its decision lacked a reasonable basis.
A question of law appearing on the face of the record may be raised for the first time on appeal if it could not have been avoided by the opposing party if brought to that party's attention in a timely manner (Block v. Magee, 146 A.D.2d 730, 732). An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal, however, where it "could have been obviated or cured by factual showings or legal countersteps" in the trial court (Telaro v Telaro, 25 N.Y.2d 433, 439, rearg denied 26 N.Y.2d 751). We conclude that additional evidence could have been presented by plaintiff or codefendants Halberts to present a jury issue whether the County failed to conduct an adequate study or whether its decision lacked a reasonable basis (see, e.g., Scheemaker v State of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 985; Ganios v. State of New York, 181 A.D.2d 859; Cordero v. City of New York, 112 A.D.2d 914, 915-916). Thus, it cannot be said that the doctrine of qualified immunity necessarily applies as a matter of law.
We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.