From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wit v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 26, 1963
19 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Opinion

November 26, 1963


Appeal from a judgment entered on a decision rendered in the Court of Claims. Claimant has had judgment against the State in the Court of Claims for a fall on a public sidewalk in the City of Hudson on which the State was an abutting landowner. The theory on which the claim is based is that the State permitted sand and gravel to accumulate on the sidewalk, washed there from drainage of water from the State's property. We are of opinion no such dangerous condition was established as to justify a liability against the abutting landowner. In this respect the duty of the State was not higher than the duty of a private owner would have been. Claimant's proof is that she "slipped" on sand and gravel. Describing the condition she testified "There was some fine sand and gravel", and further "there was sand around, very fine sand or gravel"; elsewhere she testified there was "a slight layer of sand". A photograph offered by claimant further illustrated the condition complained of. A slight layer of fine sand or gravel is not a hazard from which a reasonably prudent owner would anticipate slipping or sliding. The condition to which claimant attributed her fall is not such a dangerous condition as to bring home a liability to the abutting owner. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and claim dismissed, without costs. Bergan, P.J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wit v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 26, 1963
19 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
Case details for

Wit v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANNA M.H. WIT, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Claim No…

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

Date published: Nov 26, 1963

Citations

19 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Citing Cases

Wit v. State

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Harold J. Hughes, Jr., of counsel), for motion. (See 19 A.D.2d 941.)…

Meissner v. Andow Optical, Ltd.

Counsel for defendants asserts that there is no evidence that defendants had actual or constructive notice of…