Preston v. State
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the interlocutory judgment of the Court of Claims reinstated.
Having waived its sovereign immunity, the State is subject to the same rules of liability as apply to private citizens (Court of Claims Act, § 8). As a landowner, the State “ ‘must act as a reasonable man in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk’ ” (Basso v Miller,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Basso v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Oppel v. City of Long BeachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Oppel v. City of Long BeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
3Cited by69 opinions
- Miller v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Pelaez v. SeideNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Ferres v. City of New RochelleNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Tarricone v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Diven v. Village of Hastings-On-HudsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.