CAREY v. STATE (2026)

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 June 18, 2024.  The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In November 2020, the claimant allegedly was injured when he fell into an open manhole on Route 111 in Smithtown.  Thereafter, the claimant commenced this claim against the State of New York, alleging that the State failed to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition.  Following the completion of discovery, the State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.  In an order dated June 18, 2024, the Court of Claims granted the motion.  The claimant appeals.

“The State has a nondelegable duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition, but it is not an insurer of the safety of its roads” (Buonincontro v. State of New York, 241 A.D.3d 486, 488, 240 N.Y.S.3d 735;  see Friedman v. State of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 271, 283, 502 N.Y.S.2d 669, 493 N.E.2d 893).  “ ‘This obligation is not confined to vehicular traffic alone.  The State must provide pedestrians with a reasonably safe place to travel’ ” (Sklavonitis v. State of New York, 236 A.D.3d 957, 958, 231 N.Y.S.3d 177, quoting Way v. State of New York, 94 A.D.2d 857, 859;  see Sanford v. State of New York, 94 A.D.2d 857, 859, 463 N.Y.S.2d 595).  “The duty to provide pedestrians with a reasonably safe place to travel extends to the foreseeable uses of a roadway by a pedestrian, and ‘the State ․ is not liable for injuries sustained outside of the traveled or commonly used portions of its public ways' ” (Sklavonitis v. State of New York, 236 A.D.3d at 958, 231 N.Y.S.3d 177, quoting Tennessee v. State of New York, 280 A.D. 640, 641, 117 N.Y.S.2d 89).

The Court of Claims properly determined that the State did not have a duty to ensure that the subject area was safe for the claimant (see id. at 958, 231 N.Y.S.3d 177;  Hamilton v. State of New York, 277 A.D.2d 982, 983–984, 716 N.Y.S.2d 529).  Here, when the claimant fell into the manhole, he was not at an intersection or a designated crosswalk.  The State established, prima facie, that it was not foreseeable that a pedestrian would walk in the area of the roadway wherein the claimant fell, and thus, the State had no duty to ensure that the subject area was safe for the claimant (see Sklavonitis v. State of New York, 236 A.D.3d at 958, 231 N.Y.S.3d 177).  In opposition, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the State's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

In light of the foregoing, the parties' remaining contentions either need not be reached or are without merit.

IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.