Curry v. County of Suffolk

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of Suffolk County's motion for summary judgment in a personal-injury action arising from a container placed in a roadway. The court held that governmental-function immunity did not apply and that issues of fact remained regarding proximate cause. It reversed the denial of Winters Bros.' motion for leave to amend its answer, dismissed the appeal from the order denying reargument, and found the renewal issue academic.

Holdings

1. The County's placement of the container in the roadway and failure to warn were not an exercise of police powers for public protection, so the County was not entitled to governmental function immunity.
2. The County failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether its alleged negligence in placing the container and failing to warn was a substantial cause of the plaintiff's injuries, even though the other driver's negligence was a substantial factor.
3. The Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying Winters Bros.' motion to amend; leave should be freely granted absent prejudice, palpably insufficient amendment, or patent lack of merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the County was entitled to summary judgment on governmental function immunity.
2. Whether the County was entitled to summary judgment because the cross-over driver's negligence was the sole proximate cause.
3. Whether the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying Winters Bros.' motion for leave to amend their answer under CPLR 3025.

Disposition

affirmed_in_part_reversed_in_part