New York Court of Appeals, 1981

Gutelle v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 22, 1981

55 N.Y.2d 794; 432 N.E.2d 124; 447 N.Y.S.2d 422; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3312

Cases that cite this one

58 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kirisits v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Bednoski v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Temple v. Chenango County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Demesmimn v. Town of Islip (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Tinao v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Chapin v. City of White Plains (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Leader v. Steinway, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Luisi v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Reames v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
LAND, III, DWIGHT v. COUNTY OF ERIE (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Land v. County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Land v. County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Duffina v. County of Essex (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Duffina v. County of Essex (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Parmerter v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2012)
Russo-Martorana v. Theophilakos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Owens v. Campbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Sherman v. County of Cortland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Hill v. Town of Reading (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Blount v. Town of West Turin (New York Supreme Court 2003)
Church v. Callanan Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Gonzalez v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Slate v. Town of Antwerp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Elmer v. Kratzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Ether v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

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 of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

A municipality has a legal duty to construct and maintain its highways in a reasonably safe condition, taking into account such factors as the traffic conditions apprehended, the terrain encountered and fiscal practicality (Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91). Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579) limited municipal liability for judgmental error in planning highway design, but recognized a continuing obligation to review such a plan in light of its actual operation. It did not, however, exclude all liability even for initial planning, for there we said that “liability for injury arising out of the operation of a duly executed highway safety plan may * * * be predicated on proof that the plan either was evolved without adequate study or lacked reasonable basis” (7 NY2d, at p 589).

*796That a cause of action against a municipality for negligent highway maintenance may succeed upon sufficient evidence was recently reaffirmed by this court in Lattanzi v State of New York (53 NY2d 1045, affg 74 AD2d 378), where we agreed with the Appellate Division’s finding that there was ample proof in the record to support the conclusion that the State did not properly design and test the guardrail system prior to its installation and that the inferior capabilities of the guardrail were the proximate cause of the claimant’s injuries.

That the existence of the allegedly defectively designed abutments did not cause plaintiff’s vehicle to leave the roadway in the first instance is of no moment. As long as it can be demonstrated that the abutments were a substantial factor in aggravating plaintiff’s injuries, a cause of action may be upheld (see Stuart-Bullock v State of New York, 33 NY2d 418, 421). For these reasons, the complaint states a valid cause of action and plaintiff should be permitted the opportunity to submit evidence demonstrating negligent design and placement of the abutments at the time of installation. The Appellate Division therefore properly reversed Special Term’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

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

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

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