Clancy v. Powell

Clancy, 2026 NY Slip Op 01761 (Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2026) · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · March 25, 2026 · No. 2021-04495

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the Town of Smithtown and Smithtown Highway Department in a personal-injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by roadway sand. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish an exception to the prior written notice requirement or raise a triable issue concerning the municipality's creation or notice of a dangerous condition.

Holdings

  1. Because the Town had adopted a prior written notice law, the Town defendants could not be held liable for the alleged roadway defect absent the requisite written notice unless the plaintiff established that the municipality affirmatively created the hazard through an act of negligence or that a special use exception applied.
  2. A municipality's liability for an alleged dangerous roadway condition requires proof that it had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to take reasonable measures to correct it; the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue on those elements.
  3. Although winter sanding activities may, in a proper case, support municipal liability, the Town defendants established prima facie that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition through oversanding or improper storm-drain maintenance, and the plaintiff's expert affidavit was conclusory and speculative.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Town defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on the plaintiff's failure to establish prior written notice of the alleged roadway defect or an exception to that requirement.
  2. Whether the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact concerning actual or constructive notice, municipal creation of the alleged dangerous condition, or negligent highway and storm-drain maintenance.
  3. Whether the Town defendants established that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition through oversanding or failure to maintain storm drains.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (9)

  • DeSalvio v Suffolk County Water Auth., 127 AD3d 804, 805(followed)
  • Thompson v Nassau County, 200 AD3d 823, 825(followed)
  • Groninger v Village of Mamaroneck, 17 NY3d 125, 127-128(followed)
  • Morreale v Town of Smithtown, 153 AD3d 917, 918(followed)
  • Heins v Vanbourgondien, 180 AD3d 1019, 1023(followed)
  • Schleuter v Town of Brookhaven, 304 AD2d 641, 642(followed)
  • Hepburn v Croce, 295 AD2d 475, 476(followed)
  • Huertas v Town of Smithtown, 226 AD3d 656, 658(followed)
  • Sasso v Village of Bronxville, 208 AD3d 910, 911-912(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…