BRILLANTE v. STATE (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Gina M. Lopez–Summa, J.), dated April 12, 2024.  The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant was injured when a private coach bus in which she was a passenger struck an overpass on the Southern State Parkway.  Commercial and over-height vehicles are prohibited on the parkway due to multiple low-clearance overpasses (see 9 NYCRR 415.5[a];  17 NYCRR 182.31[b], [c];  Vehicle and Traffic Law § 385[14]).  As a result of the collision, the roof of the bus was sheared and collapsed into the passenger compartment.  A police investigation disclosed that the bus driver was unfamiliar with New York roadways and had configured his global positioning system device to “Car” mode, rather than “Tractor Trailer” mode, resulting in directions that navigated the bus from the John F. Kennedy Airport onto the parkway.  Following the accident, the driver stated to police officers that he had not seen any road signs indicating that he was driving on a restricted parkway or indicating a low overpass on the parkway.

The claimant commenced this claim against the State of New York, alleging that the State was negligent in, inter alia, failing to post “adequate and sufficient traffic control devices and/or signage” in the subject location and throughout the parkway advising of the prohibition of the operation of commercial vehicles on the parkway and regarding the low clearance of the overpass.  Following discovery, the State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that the driver's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.  In support of the motion, the State submitted, among other things, photographs depicting multiple signs posted by the entrance to the parkway warning of the prohibition against commercial vehicles and trucks, as well as along the parkway warning of the low clearances.  The claimant opposed the motion.  The Court of Claims granted the motion, determining that the State established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claim by demonstrating that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident and that, in opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  The claimant appeals.

“The State has a nondelegable duty to maintain its roads and highways in a reasonably safe condition” (Paci v. State of New York, 233 A.D.3d 945, 945, 224 N.Y.S.3d 147 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  However, the State “is not an insurer of the safety of its roads” (Sinski v. State of New York, 2 A.D.3d 517, 517, 767 N.Y.S.2d 874), and “[n]o liability will attach unless the alleged negligence of the [State] in maintaining its roads is a proximate cause of the accident” (Levi v. Kratovac, 35 A.D.3d 548, 549, 827 N.Y.S.2d 196;  see Sinski v. State of New York, 2 A.D.3d at 517, 767 N.Y.S.2d 874).

Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving claimant, the State demonstrated, prima facie, that it was not negligent and, in any event, its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident (see Levi v. Kratovac, 35 A.D.3d at 550, 827 N.Y.S.2d 196;  Demesmin v. Town of Islip, 147 A.D.2d 519, 522, 537 N.Y.S.2d 605;  Ventola v. New York State Thruway Auth., 142 A.D.2d 674, 675–676, 531 N.Y.S.2d 23).  In opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  Contrary to the claimant's contention, the Court of Claims did not err in considering certain photographs submitted by the State in its reply papers, as the evidence was submitted in direct response to allegations raised in the claimant's opposition papers (see Farquharson v. United Parcel Serv., 202 A.D.3d 923, 926, 163 N.Y.S.3d 544;  Conte v. Frelen Assoc., LLC, 51 A.D.3d 620, 621, 858 N.Y.S.2d 258;  Ryan Mgt. Corp. v. Cataffo, 262 A.D.2d 628, 630, 692 N.Y.S.2d 671).

The claimant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the State's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim (see Huertas v. Town of Smithtown, 226 A.D.3d 656, 657, 209 N.Y.S.3d 70;  Stanford v. State of New York, 167 A.D.2d 381, 382, 561 N.Y.S.2d 796;  Hearn v. State of New York, 157 A.D.2d 883, 885, 549 N.Y.S.2d 884;  Demesmin v. Town of Islip, 147 A.D.2d at 522, 537 N.Y.S.2d 605;  Ventola v. New York State Thruway Auth., 142 A.D.2d at 675–676, 531 N.Y.S.2d 23).

CONNOLLY, J.P., GENOVESI, TAYLOR and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.