Court Opinion

ID: 9879308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:07:09.886169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:50.080743
License: Public Domain

NeMoyer, J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent and would affirm the order in each appeal. “Municipalities have a duty to maintain their roads . . . in a reasonably safe condition for ‘people who obey the rules of the road’ ” (Palloni v Town of Attica, 278 AD2d 788, 788 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 709 [2001], quoting Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97 [1978]; see Pinter v Town of Java, 134 AD3d 1446, 1446-1447 [4th Dept 2015]). In this case, defendant adequately established that the road in question was reasonably safe (i.e., that defendant did not breach its road-maintenance duty), and plaintiffs thereafter “failed to sustain their burden of raising a triable question of fact on the issue whether the road [was] reasonably safe for [its] lawful, intended and foreseeable use” (Palloni, 278 AD2d at 788-789). When “a defendant comes forward with evidence that the accident was not necessarily attributable to a defect, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with direct evidence of a defect” (Portanova v Trump Taj Mahal Assoc., 270 AD2d 757, 759 [3d Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 765 [2000]; see Sideris v Simon A. Rented Servs., 254 AD2d 408, 409 [2d Dept 1998]). Here, as Supreme Court found, defendant submitted compelling evidence that the road in question “is a very short park road that goes to a parking lot. It has very subtle curvature . . . The area is basically flat and wide open.” There were no prior accidents on the road, nor were there any safety complaints related to the road itself. This evidence is sufficient to meet defendant’s initial summary judgment burden on the element of breach (see Palloni, 278 AD2d at 788). In opposition, plaintiffs tendered no expert affidavit calling the road’s safety in doubt, nor did they come forward with any direct evidence of an unsafe condition in the road. Rather, they simply speculated, from the fact of the crash alone, that the road must have been unsafe. And that is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the element of breach (see Portanova, 270 AD2d at 759; Sideris, 254 AD2d at 409). “Undoubtedly, certain risks are unavoidable . . . [A]ny public roadway, no matter how careful its design and construction, can be made safer” (Tomassi, 46 NY2d at 97). “Nevertheless, the [government] is not an insurer” (Mesick v State of New York, 118 AD2d 214, 223 [3d Dept 1986, Casey, J., dissenting], lv denied 68 NY2d 611 [1986]), and for purposes of assessing alleged municipal negligence, it does not matter whether the road could be marginally safer—it only matters whether the road is reasonably safe. In this case, there can be no real debate as to whether defendant breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe road under the circumstances: it did not. Present— Whalen, P.J., Centra, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Winslow, JJ.