[Download] "Joanne Adams v. Town Lisbon" by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Joanne Adams v. Town Lisbon
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 28, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
Plaintiff commenced this action against, inter alia, defendant Town of Lisbon (hereinafter defendant) to recover for injuries she sustained on February 7, 1988 when the car in which she was riding left Dollar Road at a point near the line dividing the Towns of Lisbon and Oswegatchie, St. Lawrence County, and struck a tree. Plaintiff's theory of liability is that defendant was negligent in failing to advise the Town of Oswegatchie of the need for warning signs and in permitting a tree to stand within the highway right-of-way in the area of the accident. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Supreme Court granted the motion upon the grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with the prior notice requirements of defendant's Local Law No. 1 of 1979 and did not produce evidence of defendant's negligence in constructing or maintaining the roadway. Plaintiff appeals. Initially, we disagree with Supreme Court's conclusion that plaintiff's failure to comply with defendant's prior notice law defeats her action as a matter of law. Turning first to the contention that defendant's local law required notice of the allegedly deficient signing, we note that while it does require prior written notice in the case of a ""sign or device * * * being defective, out or repair, unsafe, dangerous, or obstructed"", the law makes no reference to a failure to place a sign where needed. More significantly, it is now clear the General Municipal Law ? 50-e (4) does not permit municipalities to enact local laws requiring prior notice other than in the case of physical conditions of streets and officers, and that a municipality may not require prior notice of a failure to erect or maintain traffic control devices (see, Hughes v Jahoda, 75 N.Y.2d 881; Alexander v Eldred, 63 N.Y.2d 460, 467; Tyner v City of Buffalo, 152 A.D.2d 978; Ramundo v Town of Guilderland, 142 A.D.2d 50, 53), Cases holding to the contrary (see, e.g., Rich v Town of Queensbury, 88 A.D.2d 1027; Canzano v Town of Gates, 85 A.D.2d 878; Klimek v Town of Ghent, 71 A.D.2d 359, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 801) do not reflect the current status of the law.