New York Court of Appeals, 1980

Brooks v. New York State Thruway Authority

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 11, 1980 · Cooke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer

51 N.Y.2d 892; 415 N.E.2d 963; 434 N.Y.S.2d 974; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2891

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Stevens v. State of New York (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2024)
Finocchi v. Live Nation Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Roque v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Rockenstire v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Rockenstire v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Ball v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ball v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Lopez v. Adams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Smith v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2002)
Tuchrello v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2001)
Pesce v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Cordts v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Arnold v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Schichler v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Gruen v. Gruen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Laski v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Conklin v. County of Onondaga (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The experts for both sides testified that the hole in the highway was neither of the size nor the depth to deflect the tire of the claimants’ vehicle. Nor was there evidence that striking the hole would produce any bump or condition which would cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle. The evidence was insufficient to establish a casual relationship between the State’s alleged negligence in failing to repair the pothole and the accident in this case. Although there was some testimony that the accident could have been caused by an attempt to avoid the pothole a conclusion that this had in fact occurred would be speculative on this record.

*894 With this uncertainty as to causation, it must be concluded that the claimants have failed in their proof.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.