Legal Opinion
Carlo v. Town of East Fishkill
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 13, 2005PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated March 15, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, denied, as academic, their cross motion to compel discovery.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As a general rule, a municipality will not be held responsible for the negligent design of a highway it does not own or control (see Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 675 [1999]; Kovalsky v Village of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ernest v. Red Creek Central School DistrictNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Ossmer v. BatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Spatola v. Gelco Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Silver v. CooperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Sammarco v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Misek-Falkoff v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Horn v. Town of ClarkstownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Mudgett v. Long Island Rail RoadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Miller v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018