GREEN v. COUNTY OF ALLEGANY (2002)

 Plaintiff filed this action to recover damages for injuries that she sustained when she lost control of her vehicle on County Route 31.   The vehicle veered off the road into a drainage ditch and struck the stone “headwall” of a drainage culvert.   Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the claim that defendant negligently maintained the road surface and shoulder.   Defendant has a duty to maintain its roadway in a reasonably safe condition (see Stiuso v. City of New York, 87 N.Y.2d 889, 890-891, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 663 N.E.2d 321;  Friedman v. State of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 271, 283, 502 N.Y.S.2d 669, 493 N.E.2d 893;  Tomassi v. Town of Union, 46 N.Y.2d 91, 97, 412 N.Y.S.2d 842, 385 N.E.2d 581;  Lopes v. Rostad, 45 N.Y.2d 617, 623, 412 N.Y.S.2d 127, 384 N.E.2d 673).   A comparable duty exists “[w]hen [defendant] undertakes to provide a paved strip or shoulder alongside a roadway” (Stiuso, 87 N.Y.2d at 891, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 663 N.E.2d 321;  see Bottalico v. State of New York, 59 N.Y.2d 302, 304, 464 N.Y.S.2d 707, 451 N.E.2d 454).   Defendant “must maintain the shoulder in a reasonably safe condition for foreseeable uses, including its use resulting from a driver's negligence” (Bottalico, 59 N.Y.2d at 304, 464 N.Y.S.2d 707, 451 N.E.2d 454) or an emergency (see Stiuso, 87 N.Y.2d at 891, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 663 N.E.2d 321;  see also Gray v. State of New York, 163 A.D.2d 650, 651, 558 N.Y.S.2d 697).   Defendant failed to sustain its initial burden of demonstrating as a matter of law that it was free from negligence in the manner in which it maintained the road surface and shoulder (see Gonzalez v. City of New York, 268 A.D.2d 214, 215, 700 N.Y.S.2d 462;  Merchant v. Town of Halfmoon, 194 A.D.2d 1031, 1032, 599 N.Y.S.2d 687).   In any event, plaintiff raised a triable question of fact on that issue (see Gonzalez, 268 A.D.2d at 215, 700 N.Y.S.2d 462;  Dannhauser v. County of Suffolk, 216 A.D.2d 514, 515, 628 N.Y.S.2d 969;  Merchant, 194 A.D.2d at 1032-1033, 599 N.Y.S.2d 687;  Pontello v. County of Onondaga, 94 A.D.2d 427, 431-432, 464 N.Y.S.2d 891, lv. dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 560, 471 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 459 N.E.2d 196, 60 N.Y.2d 1015, 1983 WL 211988), and on the issue whether the condition of the road surface or shoulder caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries (see Durrett v. Town of Brookhaven, 268 A.D.2d 405, 701 N.Y.S.2d 626;  Merchant, 194 A.D.2d at 1032-1033, 599 N.Y.S.2d 687;  Pontello, 94 A.D.2d at 431-432, 464 N.Y.S.2d 891;  Woodcock v. County of Niagara, 52 A.D.2d 1087, 384 N.Y.S.2d 310).

 The court properly granted those parts of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the claims that defendant was negligent in maintaining the drainage ditch and the culvert headwall. Travel by vehicles in the area of those features was “neither contemplated nor foreseeable” (Tomassi, 46 N.Y.2d at 97, 412 N.Y.S.2d 842, 385 N.E.2d 581;  see generally Bottalico, 59 N.Y.2d at 305-306, 464 N.Y.S.2d 707, 451 N.E.2d 454;  Hyde v. County of Rensselaer, 51 N.Y.2d 927, 929-930, 434 N.Y.S.2d 984, 415 N.E.2d 972;  Kimber v. State of New York, 294 A.D.2d 692, 693-694, 741 N.Y.S.2d 612;  Muller v. State of New York, 240 A.D.2d 881, 882, 658 N.Y.S.2d 727).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: