Scheemaker v. State

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

The record contains sufficient proof to create a question of fact as to the State’s negligence in failing to conduct an adequate investigation and study in making its determination that the 25-mile-per-hour advisory speed sign was the appropriate traffic control device for the intersection. Thus, we reject the State’s argument that it is protected from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity stated in Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579; see, Alexander v Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 465, 466; cf., Friedman v State of New York, 67…