| Babenzien v Town of Fenton |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08553 [67 AD3d 1236] |
| November 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| David Babenzien, Respondent, v Town of Fenton, Appellant, andDelaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Finkelstein & Partners, L.L.P., Newburgh (Thomas J. Pronti of counsel), for DavidBabenzien, respondent. McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C., Albany (Matthew P. Barry of counsel), forDelaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc., and others, respondents.
Garry, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered February 17, 2009in Broome County, which denied a motion by defendant Town of Fenton for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.
In April 2005, plaintiff rode his motorcycle over a railroad crossing on Fuller Road in theTown of Fenton, Broome County. A few feet after crossing the tracks, he was caught in thethroat by a wire hanging low across the roadway and thrown from his motorcycle into a ditch.The railroad tracks, the wire that plaintiff struck, and the telephone poles from which the wirewas suspended along the tracks were owned and maintained by defendants Delaware andHudson Railway Company, Inc., Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and Delaware and HudsonRailway Company, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the railroad). Fuller Road wasowned and [*2]maintained by defendant Town of Fenton.
On the day before plaintiff's accident, several employees of the Town Highway Department,including the Highway Superintendent, his deputy, and the Town Engineer, were at a work siteon Fuller Road near the crossing when a tractor trailer crossing the railroad tracks caught a wireor wires. A broken wire flew through the air toward the town workers. One of the employeesallegedly coiled the broken wire and placed it off the side of the road, and the HighwaySuperintendent then examined the overhead wire or wires that remained, reportedly finding thateverything looked "normal . . . it didn't look to be a height problem." Later that day,the Highway Superintendent left a voice mail for a railroad employee, designated as the contactfor railroad crossing problems, advising him that they needed to talk about problems at this andanother railroad crossing. The railroad employee did not return the call, and the HighwaySuperintendent made no additional effort to notify the railroad regarding what he had witnessed.
A town employee testified that he drove a backhoe over the railroad tracks without anydifficulty before work had begun and he did so again after the wire broke. He described hisbackhoe as being approximately 10 feet tall. Another town employee testified that after theemployees saw the wire break, at least one overhead wire was still in place, and that "[i]t didn'tlook like it was hanging low." At the request of the Broome County Sheriff's Department, thisemployee returned to the accident scene the next day, after plaintiff's accident, to clear brokenwires off the road. He found two or three broken pieces of wire, one attached to a pole on oneside of the road and another attached to a pole on the other side of the road, which he coiled upand moved out of the right-of-way.
In February 2006, plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for his personal injuries.Defendants answered and asserted cross claims for contribution and/or indemnification againsteach other. The Town moved for summary judgment on the ground that it did not have priorwritten notice of the dangerous condition as required by Local Law No. 1 (1994) of Town ofFenton, and, further, that it could not be held liable since it did not own, control, or maintain therailroad crossing, wires, or poles. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that, despite thelack of prior written notice, the Town had actual notice of the dangerous condition based on thebroken wire witnessed by town employees on the day before the accident. The court also foundan issue of fact as to whether the Town retained sufficient control over the railroad crossing tocreate a duty to take reasonable steps to remedy the condition. The Town now appeals.
It is undisputed that the Town received no prior written notice of the dangerous conditionthat caused plaintiff's accident, as required by Local Law No. 1. The Town thus established aprima facie right to judgment, and the burden shifted to plaintiff to establish a factual issue as tothe existence of an exception to the notice requirement (see Yarborough v City of NewYork, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; Boice v City of Kingston, 60 AD3d 1140, 1141[2009]). The Court of Appeals has established that only two exceptions to prior written noticelaws are recognized: "where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative actof negligence and where a 'special use' confers a special benefit upon the locality" (Amabilev City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999] [citation omitted]). Plaintiff and the railroadcontend that questions of fact exist as to the applicability of the first exception. In their view, thetown employees who worked on Fuller Road on the day before the accident may have createdthe dangerous condition that caused plaintiff's accident by moving the wire that was broken bythe truck off the right-of-way, thereby twisting and tangling it with the remaining overhead wire[*3]or wires and loosening or disconnecting them. No evidence,however, indicates that any such twisting, tangling, loosening, or disconnection took place. Thetown employees testified without contradiction that after the wire was broken by the truck andremoved from the road, the remaining overhead wire or wires appeared to be normal, and thatthey were able to drive their equipment underneath without incident. In the absence ofadmissible evidence contradicting this testimony, plaintiff's arguments in this respect are merely"unsubstantiated allegations or assertions" insufficient to establish issues of fact (Zuckermanv City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; see Cotch v City of Albany, 37AD3d 1012, 1013 [2007]). No claim has been made that the second exception relative to theTown's "special use" applies.
Plaintiff's claim against the Town is barred by the absence of prior written notice.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed,on the law, without costs, motion by defendant Town of Fenton granted, summary judgmentawarded to said defendant and complaint and all cross claims against it dismissed.