1. Drivers Ed Schools Near Me
2. Farrell Drivers Ed Staten Island Outage Map
3. Moore Drivers Ed Staten Island
4. Farrell Drivers Ed Staten Island Registration

Synopsis

AARP members can take the Staying Sharp brain health assessment for free! Offer good through Dec. Many drivers 50 and older aren't familiar with circular intersections Take the AARP Smart Driver Online Course You may save on your auto insurance Benefits of Volunteering for AARP Driver Safety.

Driver’s Ed I & II -$750 Driver’s Ed III – $450 Driver’s Ed I, II, & III – $1150 For more information call, 409-943-5770. We also offer an online option to be a Driver Education Instructor. The cost for this course is $900. Becoming certified online is beneficial to those with busy schedules. Farrell Drivers Ed Staten Island. 8/23/2020 0 Comments He oversaw the first season where the team competed for the first time.Whether they are on the court, in the pool or teeing off in hopes of a hole-in-one, every one of our students is given the chance to grow as a young man and athlete. Farrell Drivers Ed Staten Island. 8/23/2020 0 Comments He oversaw the first season where the team competed for the first time.Whether they are on the court, in the.

Claim dismissed after trial. Claimant struck by debris on Gowanus Expressway. Claimantalleged that daily movement of barriers to create HOV lanes, and failure to adequately inspectand maintain roadway thereafter, caused her accident.

Case information

Decision

Janine Farrell alleges in her claim that the State of New York should be held liable innegligence for injuries she suffered on May 15, 2002 while driving in an eastbound lane of theGowanus Expressway toward Manhattan. More specifically, shortly after 6:00 a.m. Musou orochi z english patch download pc. she wasdriving her vehicle in one of two Manhattan-bound High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lanesentering the Gowanus Expressway approximately 1500 feet from the toll booths of the BrooklynBattery Tunnel when a metal object, later described as likely an old brake shoe from a largevehicle such as a truck [Exhibit 4], struck and broke through the driver's side windshield of hercar, hit Ms. Farrell in the face and ultimately rendered her unconscious. This decision relatesonly to the issue of liability, after a bifurcated trial was held over three days in November 2009⁽¹⁾and submission of post trial memoranda.

Claimant's theory of liability rests on whether the State of New York should be heldliable for an alleged negligent failure to adequately maintain the highway for the safety of thetraveling public by keeping the area free of debris which it knew or should have known wouldcollect and foreseeably endanger drivers. Defendant argues that claimant failed to establish by apreponderance of the credible evidence that the State of New York breached any duty owed toclaimant, or that any action on the State's part was a substantial factor in causing the accidentalleged herein. Specifically, the State contends that the contractor retained by the State torehabilitate the highway, which involved the opening and closing of HOV lanes on a daily basis,had a reasonable procedure in effect for the inspection of the area. State personnel, too, hadreasonable procedures in place for the supervision of such inspections as well as their owninspections, and that there was no proof beyond speculation as to the source of the object thatstruck claimant's vehicle, including the length of time it may have lain in the roadway if that wasthe source, so as to provide notice of its danger.

Ms. Farrell recalled little of the morning of Wednesday, May 15, 2002 beyond the firstphase of her regular commute from Staten Island along the Gowanus Expressway. That morningshe was attending training at the Police Academy, related to her service as a New York CityPolice Detective with the Organized Crime Investigation Division and utilized the same route.She estimated that she left home for the training at approximately 5:40 a.m. The Toyota Camryshe drove - leased by her employer - was in good working condition and the weather was clear. She recalled that construction on the Gowanus had been ongoing since at least September 11,2001.

Asked to describe the general condition of the two lanes utilized as HOV lanes at thathour of the morning, Ms. Farrell said

'It was a mess . . . there were always things in the roadway . . . like cardboard,rocks, mufflers, hubcaps. There were water bottles, . . . cups. Everything.' [T1-96].

She recalled pebbles 'always' kicking up from the car in front of hers, 'because it was alwaysdebris in the roadway . . . you would drive, it would ping off the car.' [T1-97]. There wereworkers in the area wearing hard hats and vests, 'walking in the roadway . . . on the other side ofthe barrier.' [T1-98]. A permanent Jersey barrier marked the right side of the right HOV lane,and a moveable barrier was on the left side of the left HOV lane.

As claimant drove on the Gowanus in the left-hand HOV lane, where one HOV lanebecame two HOV lanes at the Prospect Avenue entrance/exit and the road began to ascend, a buswas driving in the right-hand HOV lane, just ahead of her. She saw a car '[come] right up on thebus's' rear bumper, and then he cut over in front of me and then he drove off. That's the last Iremember.' [T1-99]. She was 'just right before the top of the crest' and had not started a descentdown toward the tollbooths for the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel when she heard pebbles pinging. Her next memory was waking up in the hospital.

On cross-examination claimant agreed that other than nicks on the hood of the car, thepebbles she saw on the roadway during all the time she had commuted that route had nevercaused her to lose control of her car, and that such pebbles were present on roadways other thanthe Gowanus. She never saw what hit her car, and has only seen a photograph of the object [e.g.Exhibit 4] later retrieved from her car by investigating officers. She did not hear any objectstrike her car, and has no actual knowledge as to where the object found in her car came from,and assumed, later, that 'it came from the ground.' [T-106].

On May 15, 2002 a joint venture called Grace/El Sol Constr. & Const. Corp. (Grace/ElSol) continued its work pursuant to a contract [D258492] entered into in August 2000 with theState of New York Department of Transportation [DOT], for the improvement of varioushighways and bridges including the relevant portions of the Gowanus Expressway. [Exhibits 1and T]. Part of the obligation under the contract was to regulate the use of moveable concretebarriers for the maintenance and protection of traffic. Grace/El Sol was required to

'follow the lane closure details included in the proposal for theMaintenance and Protection of Traffic . . . The Contractor shall berequired to clean the area of debris from his operation or general debrispickup and sweeping of whatever is there . . .' [Exhibit 1 at 279].

Overall, however, it was State engineers who supervised. Indeed throughout the 600-plus pagesthat constitute contract number D258492, there are references to the engineer's field decisions toadd additional flag persons for example, or to increase the lighting in a particular area.

In terms of the DOT personnel responsible for the project, Jose M. Rivera, an areaconstruction supervisor for the project, was familiar with the cleaning requirements of the projectas standard contract provisions requiring the contractor - in the context of maintaining andprotecting traffic 'on a daily basis' - to clean the roadway on a 'daily' basis if it was necessary.[T1-12]. The safety of the traveling public was a high priority for everyone on the project. During the duration of the contract, the Gowanus Expressway was designated as a restrictedhighway⁽²⁾ [see Exhibit 1, Page 165], making the DOT responsible for 'construction elements' aswell as maintenance of the highway according to Mr. Rivera. [T1-14]. Such designation appearsto most concern the maintenance obligations as between the City and the State of New York.⁽³⁾

Stan Malek, the DOT engineer-in-charge in 2002 but now retired, testified at some lengthabout the project. As an engineer-in-charge, Mr. Malek was most directly responsible for the day-to-day management of the project.

Mr. Malek said the work being performed on the Gowanus project was in the category ofrehabilitation, namely fixing the deck on that portion of the Gowanus that was elevated, as wellas doing structural steel repairs, from the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to the Brooklyn BatteryTunnel. Among Mr. Malek's duties was overseeing the additional inspection consultant companyhired by the State, Urbitran, which was hired to perform inspections related to the maintenanceand protection of traffic safety. Urbitran, in turn, hired inspectors, including Melvin Neuble,whose deposition testimony was submitted [see Exhibit U], and whose activities were alsooverseen by Mr. Malek.

Mr. Malek said he was there almost every day, normally between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 3:30 p.m. He recalled that the process of opening up the additional Manhattan-bound HOVlane could begin sometime between 2:30 a.m. or 4:00 a.m., until it was completely open at 6:00a.m. Although State personnel would not always be present, the inspectors from Urbitran wouldalways be there. When the additional HOV lane was closed, the moveable barrier would bemoved back into position across the two lanes, adjacent to a permanent barrier. While Grace/ElSol provided the operating engineers and laborers to set up the lanes for opening and closing, andto move the barrier utilizing a machine for that purpose, Urbitran and State personnel inspected.An additional consultant, Sverdrup, was also present. Each company had a resident engineer, anoffice engineer, senior inspectors, a chief inspector and lower level inspectors. Mr. Neuble wrotedaily inspection reports concerning his supervision of the opening and closing of the lanes[Exhibit C] which were given to Urbitran's resident engineer and thereafter to Mr. Malek. Mr.Neuble rode with the contractor during the opening and closing of the lanes, and sometimeswalked portions of them as well. [Exhibit U]. Prior to the HOV lane being opened to the public,'[t]he contractor would usually ride down the HOV lane, would be the first one to go through theHOV lane to the Battery Tunnel.' [Id. Page 72]. Any debris seen by anyone at any phase of thelane openings and closings would be picked up; indeed a dump truck or pickup truck was part ofthe process according to Mr. Neuble. [Id, Page 75].

In terms of cleaning requirements, Mr. Malek also said that the cleaning would be done'if necessary' on a daily basis, meaning

'the contractor didn't go out there with a broom every day, but if he sawsomething that . . . posed a hazard he would take care of it.' [T2-36].

Photographs showing debris along the permanent barrier, taken by Police Officer Maresca underthe direction of the detectives investigating the area after the accident, were shown to Mr. Malek[see e.g. exhibits 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 29], and include depictions of rocks, pebbles, soil, bits ofrubber, bits of wire, small bolts and hardware, and pieces of wood and cloth, with the largestpieces being a carpeted car mat [Exhibit 29] and what appears to be a license-plate-size item[Exhibit 13] of unknown material - in short, all types of debris that might be seen on a busilytraversed urban highway. It is noted that almost all the photographs of the Gowanus and thedebris were not taken below the crest in the area where a bus driver placed the first phase ofclaimant's accident, or where claimant's memory of events ended. Indeed, the photographs ofdebris appear to have been taken near the tollbooths for the most part.

Mr. Malek said that he could not tell from the photographs alone if the roadway in thearea depicted was hazardous to traffic. He explained that when the HOV lane was opened in theearly morning hours, his recall accorded with that of Mr. Neuble that the contractor wouldsimultaneously be driving down the lane, checking that there were 'no obstructions in theroadway.' [T2-46-47]. Mr. Neuble would accompany the contractor, either walking or riding onthe truck. The moveable barrier was 'physically lift[ed]' off the ground '[a]pproximately 4 to 6inches' Mr. Malek said, as opposed to being dragged or slid across the highway. [T2-47].

Mr. Malek went to the scene after the accident and saw the object that was found inclaimant's car for the first time on the passenger side of claimant's car. [Exhibit 4]. Admitted inevidence, the generally rectangular object appears to be an old, rusty metal brake shoe, with nosigns of webbing or other padding material attached to it, curved, 17 inches long, 7 inches wideand weighing slightly over 6 lbs. [Id.]. There are rivets in place. [Id.]. Mr. Malek himself did notknow what the object was.

In Mr. Neuble's inspection report for the day of the accident, it is noted that the HOVlanes were closed for police investigation, and that such closure occurred at approximately 8:15a.m. [Exhibit C, page 81]. When asked, Mr. Malek said such notation would mean that the laneswere open still until 8:15 a.m. [T2-52]. More generally, from Mr. Malek's supervision of thework of Grace/El Sol and Urbitran during the course of the project, he found them to haveperformed their jobs in accordance with the contract requirements of their work - including theopening and closing of the HOV lanes, and the associated maintenance - and had not receivedany complaints about the safety of the roadway or excessive debris in the roadway prior to theaccident of May 15, 2002.

Gerard Napolitano was driving his regular express bus run from Staten Island to NewYork on May 15, 2002. He used the right-hand HOV lane on the Gowanus Expressway if it wasopen, and did so on that morning. He had driven the same route 'every day for three months'prior to the date of the accident. [T2- 66]. Asked if he 'ever encounter[ed] debris in the roadway'on the route he said '[a]lways' [T2-67], saying that other bus drivers would communicate overthe radio to say there was debris in the road. Nonetheless, he had never registered any type ofcomplaint about debris in the roadway to anyone.

Before the merger of the Gowanus with the Prospect Expressway, there was only oneHOV lane. When the roads merged, there were two HOV lanes. He said that a portion of theGowanus just after its merger with the Prospect Expressway rose to a crest, and thereaftercontinued on a 'basically straight run, straight down on a decline' toward the Brooklyn BatteryTunnel. [T2-59]. He estimated that the distance from the crest to the tollbooths wasapproximately 1500 feet.

As he approached the Prospect Expressway merger in the one HOV lane, he observed acar directly behind him, which then sped by in the left HOV lane when he moved the bus to theright lane. When he then approached the crest, he saw the same car hit the left barrier and he sawthe driver slump toward the passenger side of the car. Mr. Napolitano slowed down, driving atapproximately 35 mph. The claimant's car then veered to the right across the two lanes, strikingthe right-side barrier, speeding up, and riding along the right-side barrier down toward thetollbooths. He lost sight of the car after about ten seconds. He did not see anything strike thecar before it hit the moveable barrier on the left, did not see anything come off any vehicledriving in the opposite direction, and never saw what struck the car, from his perspective,approximately 200 feet behind claimant's car, proceeding uphill. Until his interview inconnection with the investigation of the accident, he had no idea why claimant's car did what itdid.

While on direct examination Mr. Napolitano said that the claimant's car was the only carthat had passed him in the given area that morning, on cross-examination he confirmed thatanother car passed him on the left immediately before the claimant passed him. He described thefirst car as 'black, like a limousine car.' [T2- 72].

An accident investigation was led by detective Anthony Maiello, then a 15-year veteranof the Accident Investigation Squad and now retired, who testified as claimant's expert. Hisprimary purpose was to rule out any criminal conduct. Under his direction, Police Officer JeffreyMaresca of the New York City Police Department took photographs of the roadway, apparent tiremarkings along the permanent barrier, and Ms. Farrell's car from various angles [Exhibits 11-55]. He also took measurements of the marks along the permanent barrier that showed the lengthalong which claimant's vehicle presumably rode the barrier, and made field sketches [Exhibit10]. Officer Maresca did not take any samples or scrapings from the claimant's car or the barrier,did not view the DVD recordings taken by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority [TBTA]of what could be seen of the accident from the tollbooth area [see Exhibits 8 and 9], andessentially took the photographs as the investigating detective directed.

Detective Maiello testified that where the first tire marks were noted on the permanentright barrier, there were no overpasses or pedestrian walkways, and estimated that the closestoverpass or elevated area by the Gowanus would be '1000 feet . . . maybe even further' backfrom the first tire marking at the crest of Gowanus heading down toward the tunnel. [T2-87]. Nophotographs were taken to show markings, if any, on the moveable barrier, however, where thebus driver indicated claimant's vehicle first struck.

Detective Maiello confirmed that the object found in claimant's car was in the samecondition as it was on the day of the accident. [Exhibit 4]. Detective Maiello identified theelevated structures near the Gowanus as including a pedestrian walkway going across thehighway, a ramp entrance to the Brooklyn Queens Expressway [BQE] eastbound, adjacent to thehighway, and another ramp exit from the BQE to the Gowanus that crosses the highway. [SeeExhibit 30].

After some investigation of potential criminality, including a theory of an object beingthrown from the pedestrian walkway, he concluded that there was no evidence of any criminalactivity.

Detective Maiello reviewed the shorter of two DVD recordings made by the TBTAshowing the viewpoint from the toll plaza from 6:11 a.m. through 6:18 a.m. [Exhibit 9] in Court,remarking that one could see where the permanent barrier ended as claimant's car ran along it,and then where claimant veered across traffic to one of the tollbooths farthest to the right fromwhere she was proceeding, and where she finally came to rest after crashing through the tollboothlane. A longer version starting at 5:45 a.m. and ending at 6:20 a.m. shows the contractorfinishing up placing the traffic cones after creating the HOV lanes, as well as the first sightings ofclaimant's car. [See Exhibit 8].

Neither recording shows, however, the area beyond the crest as seen from the tollbooth,where Ms. Farrell's memory ends, and where Mr. Napolitano testified was the first spot where hesaw Ms. Farrell's car strike the moveable barrier and then move over to the permanent barrier.

What is evident from the longer recording is that countless trucks - including opencontainer and flatbed trucks - buses, and passenger vehicles passed in both directions before,during and after the time frame for claimant's accident, from level positions and from elevatedpositions, even if such elevation is measured by the difference between the height of a passengervehicle versus a truck. [Exhibit 8].

After the investigation, Detective Maiello concluded that a metal object

'that was indicated that was in the bay was subsequently picked up by therear of a bus, striking Ms. Farrell's vehicle, then striking her, causing herto pass out and cross alongside the driver's side and passenger side, thenproceeded down into the HOV lanes towards the Brooklyn BatteryTunnel.' [T2-106].

On cross-examination, Mr. Maiello acknowledged that the TBTA recording he discussedat trial [Exhibit 9] did not show an object striking claimant's car, that during the course of theinvestigation no one said that he or she had seen an object strike claimant's car, and Mr.Napolitano, the bus driver, never struck an object himself, nor did he observe an object strike theclaimant's car. He conceded that although both claimant and the bus driver mentioned anothervehicle passing the bus first and driving in front of claimant, he did not later identify the vehiclein the course of his investigation, including his review of the videotape, but concluded 'based onthe statements that were obtained, based on the description of the item' [T2-114] that anothervehicle - if a small one like a car - would have sustained damage if it kicked up the object, and noother cars reported damage as far as he knew.

When Detective Maiello arrived at the scene to commence his investigation, although theHOV lanes were closed, he did not know how long they had been closed, nor could he recallwhen he arrived except that it was in the morning. It is noted that Officer Maresca recalled thatDetective Maiello arrived at approximately 11:00 a.m. Detective Maiello acknowledged thatwhen he walked the HOV lanes that morning, he walked only up to the crest from the tollbooths,not beyond. Officer Maresca and Maiello did not walk the area together; rather, the detectivedescribed to the officer where he wanted photographs taken, and Detective Maiello expressedhimself satisfied with the photographs taken and the field drawings made. It also appeared thatDetective Maiello had originally thought that the genesis of the accident was in an area whereelevated roads were located adjacent to the Gowanus.

Detective Maiello was unaware that the asserted mechanics of the accident includedstriking the moveable barrier first, and said that

'[i]t appeared [claimant's car] swerved to that area based on theinformation, but I didn't see any indication of that as much as defined as Isaw the indication on the solid barrier.' [T2-125].

He did not direct that any photographs be taken of the moveable barrier, and did not take anysamples of paint or tire marks for comparison purposes from either claimant's car or thepermanent barrier, nor were any scrapings taken from the object itself.

His operating theory was that Exhibit 4 was kicked up by the back of a City transit bus orsome other large vehicle. He said that 'if he had to guess' it would be the driver's side of thebus that picked the object up; yet he conceded upon viewing a photograph taken by OfficerMaresca showing the HOV lanes down toward the tolls - the same direction claimant had beenheading - that there is no debris at all in the actual HOV lanes. [See Exhibit 11]. He agreed thatthis object, if it had been an operating brake shoe, would not have just fallen off a truck, andconfirmed that he saw no other associated features to a brake shoe, such as padding or webbing,as he traversed the area. He did not examine any of the expressway lanes in the oppositedirection, and, as noted, did not walk beyond the crest.

Additionally, Detective Maiello conceded that he did not perform any analysis todetermine how the object could have been projected upward after being hit by a bus, given that abus has a large overhang, suggesting an object would be deflected downward, saying

'It's all a matter of how it was projected . . . This [his conclusion] was based onstatements, based on the evidence that obviously was gathered. And afterconcluding that it appeared that this was just - - not a criminal act - - but this wasjust an incident that had occurred as a result of everything that was gathered onthe scene and the information obtained.' [T2-130].

He did not determine the speed of the claimant's car or investigate any vehicular traffic movingin the other direction. Altoqi lumine v4 cracked. He did not perform any measurements to determine the height of theobject's entry into the car, nor did he determine at what angle the object entered the windshield,saying

'[i]t appeared that it went not on an angle, it just appeared that it went tothe lower portion of the windshield directly into the driver portion of thevehicle, not striking the steering wheel and striking Ms. Pdf buku psikologi kepribadian awilsol. Farrell.' [T2-131-132].

It did not strike the hood of the car, or the front grill, and appeared to strike the windshield on theshorter, narrower end of the object. He did not perform any analysis to determine the speed andforce it would have taken to penetrate the windshield, which he agreed was made from highpenetration resistant glass.

Finally, Detective Maiello also said that he regularly traversed the area where thisaccident happened, often in the same HOV lanes, yet never registered any complaint with theState or the contractor concerning any proliferation of debris.

William Meyer testified as defendant's expert engineer. He had considerable experiencewith motor vehicle accident reconstruction and spent most of his time performing suchinvestigations over the last 14 years, and testified persuasively concerning the ramifications ofthe real evidence submitted. His opinions were given to a reasonable degree of engineeringcertainty.

Mr. Meyer identified Exhibit 4 as a brake table of a type utilized in a large truck orutilized in industrial applications such as elevators. The fact that there was no padding orwebbing - which would have been welded on with metal and further secured by the rivets thatstill remain on the object - suggested that the materials had been removed by a process ratherthan haphazardly with wear. There were no paint scrapings on the object, nor did it bear the kindof wear associated with having been scraped across concrete.

As Detective Maiello had observed, and Mr. Meyer agreed, the car's windshield wascomposed of penetration resistant laminated glass. Photographs documenting the condition of theclaimant's car after the accident demonstrated that the first point of impact of Exhibit 4 with thecar was at the lower portion of the windshield - where there is a hole in the windshield on thedriver's side [see Exhibit 47] - or at least 40 inches off the ground. To create such a hole theobject would need to have hit the windshield with great force and from an angle that would allowpenetration when windshields are designed not to allow penetration. As Detective Maiello hadalso observed, the object did not hit the front bumper, it did not hit the headlight material, it didnot hit the front grill, and did not hit the engine compartment hood.[T3-13].

Under Detective Maiello's scenario the object would have to have been elevated to asignificant height, and would also have moved a significant lateral distance as well across thelanes. First, Mr. Meyer considered and ruled out the possibility that an object on the right-handside of the road could have been kicked up by the right rear tires of a bus, generating enoughheight and force to then penetrate the driver's side windshield of claimant's car without hittingthe other areas of the car, described as untouched. Next, Mr. Meyer calculated that for an objectto have been kicked up by the left rear wheels of a bus from debris, it would have to havetraveled to a height of 6½ feet and 6½ feet laterally to strike claimant's car where it did on thedriver's side.

Moreover, he said the buses used in city transit have an eight to ten foot overhang fromthe rear wheels and utilize mud flaps. The dual wheel assemblies, he opined, would causekicked-up debris to strike the overhang. Damage would likely have been observed under the busand, if the object had been further struck by other vehicles, there would have been damage tosuch vehicles, and none was reported. Mr. Meyer opined that it is more likely that the objectwould have to have come from a much higher vantage point, as debris from a scrap truck forexample or other open container.

Mr. Meyer noted that while there is debris shown on the right-hand side of the roadwayagainst the permanent barrier, this object would have been the lone piece of material on the leftside of the right lane - basically in the center of the two lanes - yet there is no showing of debrisin any of the photos in that location. [See e.g. Exhibit 11].

After watching both TBTA recordings taken from the tollbooth area, Mr. Meyer notedthat they show significant traffic on the various overpasses, and in the opposite lanes of travel.[See Exhibits 8 and 9]. Numerous vehicles of all types also traveled the HOV lane toward thetunnel prior to claimant. [Exhibit 8]. This fact, too, was important in forming his opinionbecause the likelihood of some object being in the roadway without anyone encountering it priorto claimant is low; and traffic overhead and coming toward, or even in the same direction butuphill, are other potential sources for an object coming from an elevated location to strike thewindshield.

On cross-examination, Mr. Meyer admitted that it was a 'possibility' that the brake shoehad been ridden over and moved against a roughened roadway based upon the longitudinallyoriented abrasions [T3-41]. However, he also said that because such abrasions are only on theheads of the rivets on the interior portion of the brake shoe, the scenario of having been riddenover repeatedly would be unlikely because there is no reason why the rest of the object would notbe similarly abraded or unprotected, thus this still suggests some type of processing of the object.[T3-76].

Utilizing vector analysis, Mr. Meyer explained that the combination of the car'shorizontal forward movement, with the velocity the object would need and the angle at which itwould hit to penetrate the sloped windshield, penetration is better explained by a forceful entryfrom a height.

'[I]f the object were kicked up as has been indicated, you would havezero, . . . very close to zero velocity. It would essentially come up and startcoming down again.' [T3-44].

Mr. Meyer acknowledged that in either the falling from a height scenario he opined, or thecoming upward from the road scenario advanced by Detective Maiello, the object would have hitthe dashboard in order to strike claimant in the jaw, and that the dashboard (from what littlecould be seen in the photographs) did not have 'noticeable' marks. [T3-48]. He reiterated,however, that with an 'upward velocity' the angle at which the object would have hit thewindshield would have been 'predominantly tangential or dominantly parallel to the windshield'and would not have penetrated it. [T3-49].

As to where the object came from, he credibly rearticulated that where the accident beganis not clear, with only the testimony of the bus driver (7 years after the event) making it eitherjust before or at the crest of the road before the descent toward the tollbooths. From the TBTArecordings [Exhibits 8 and 9], although he could not identify any particular vehicle to place it at acertain location at a specific time (because of the uncertainty as to where claimant was when theobject struck her car), he observed numerous trucks traveling in all directions, and overpassareas, that would furnish the position from which the degree of velocity required to penetrate thewindshield would be possible, from either a stationary overhead position, or from a containertruck approximately 10 feet to 13 feet high.

While the State of New York has a nondelegable duty to maintain its highways inreasonably safe condition for the use of the traveling public, it is not an insurer. Friedman v Stateof New York, 67 NY2d 271 (1986); Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617 (1978); Vega v State of NewYork, 37 AD3d 825 (2d Dept 2007). What is required are reasonable precautions, whichsafeguards would arguably adjust as known conditions warrant such adjustment.

It is not particularly disputed that it is ultimately the State that is responsible for themaintenance of the restricted highway during construction, as is indicated in the applicablestatute [see Highway Law §104-a; Vehicle and Traffic Law §1625(a) ], as provided for in thecontract [Exhibit 1] and City permit, and under the common law. Thus the State's duty tomanage the opening and closing of the HOV lanes during construction and the related duty tomaintain the area are assumed. Significantly, no liability may attach unless claimant establishesthat the State had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition and failed to takereasonable measures to correct the condition.

The real issue here is whether the State or its agents had notice of a recurring dangerousdebris condition sufficient to charge them with notice of each specific recurrence of suchcondition and thereafter negligently failed to safeguard the traveling public.

A defendant who has actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition can be chargedwith constructive notice of each specific recurrence of the condition. Freund v Ross-RodneyHous. Corp., 292 AD2d 341(2d Dept 2002); Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748 (2d Dept1993). To successfully establish notice by way of a recurrent condition, a claimant must not onlyshow the existence of the recurring condition (here, presumably, dangerous debris), but must alsoprovide evidence that a negligent defect also existed causing the recurring condition. Proof of thedefect allows the condition to be anticipated or rectified by the defendant. SeeTalavera v NewYork City Tr. Auth., 41 AD3d 135 (1st Dept 2007).⁽⁴⁾ Nonetheless, reasonable efforts to maintainthe highway are what is required. Hall v State of New York, 37 Misc 2d 1093, 1096 (Ct Cl1962); cf. Purdy v State of New York, 25 Misc 2d 907 (Ct Cl 1960), affd 12 AD2d 834 (3d Dept1961). In this regard, claimant asserts that more than a general awareness of a general conditionof debris in the roadway is chargeable to the State. A dangerous debris condition, it is urged, wascaused theoretically by the movement of the left HOV barrier on a daily basis, and inadequatecleaning and inspection, forming the correctable defect for recurring condition purposes.

Upon review of all the evidence, including listening to the witnesses testify and observingtheir demeanor as they did so, the Court finds that claimant has failed to meet her burden ofestablishing that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the existence of a dangerouscondition, and has failed to establish that the defendant was negligent, and that any purportedbreach of duty on the State's part was a substantial contributing factor of Ms. Farrell's injuries.

There was excessive documentary evidence presented in this case that frustratingly didnot truly document the claim.

As has been noted above, most (if not all) of the photographs taken by Officer Marescawere not taken in the area where witness statements placed the accident. The only photographactually shown to Mr. Napolitano was taken facing the Manhattan-bound traffic underneath anoverpass for the BQE, before the pedestrian walkway, showing - in the very far distance - thecrest he described as the spot where he observed claimant slumped over and striking thetemporary barrier. [Exhibit 30]. He was never asked to identify debris in the photographs asfairly and accurately depicting the debris visible that day, nor was he shown the threephotographs taken facing the tollbooths that most approximate the perspective he and Ms. Farrellmight have had as she was propelled past the crest and as he drove over the crest that morning.[See Exhibits 11,18, 38]. Notably, even those three photographs do not show any area of theroad before the crest that would face Manhattan-bound traffic (i.e., the direction in whichclaimant and Mr. Napolitano were traveling), and show the road area adjacent to the permanentbarrier on the right but only in shadow. [Id.]. Ms. Farrell was not shown debris photographseither.

The photographs depicting debris were all taken in areas with overpasses, and in areascloser to the tollbooths (as much as can be inferred given the paucity of testimony placing thelocation of the photographs). [See Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28,29, 50, 51, 53]. All photographs were taken more than four hours after the accident, after theHOV lanes had remained open for two additional hours, until approximately 8:15 a.m.,

following the early morning accident.

The three photographs taken facing the tollbooths that most approximate the perspectiveof a Manhattan-bound driver - but past the crest - do not show any remarkable debris other thanthat regularly seen on any highway, anywhere, regardless of ongoing construction nearby orregular maintenance. [Exhibits 11, 18, 38]. Indeed, what is shown in the shadows in those threephotographs are dirt and pebbles. [Id.]. Near the tollbooths, where vehicles are slowing downbecause of the proximity of the booths and the tunnel, as well as the natural congestion of urbantraffic, items such as the car mat [Exhibits 29 and 53], the piece of asphalt and block of woodalong with bits of hardware, dirt, pebbles [Exhibits 26, 27, 28, 51], a piece of what looks likebalsa wood or cardboard [Exhibit 19], and a hubcap [Exhibit 50] shown are rendered lesssignificant. Indeed, Mr. Malek said that while it is difficult to tell from the photographs he wasshown (and he was not shown all the photographs) what might present a potential hazard, henoted that he would pick up the piece of balsa wood or cardboard shown in Exhibit 19 if he sawit, or would direct that the contractor pick it up.

There are two photographs that show a part of the dashboard of claimant's car. [Exhibits44 and 47]. The first is photographed through the passenger side window, and while thepassenger side dashboard area is visible, the hump on the dashboard directly in front of thesteering wheel is awash in sunlight and shows nothing of the texture of the surface in front of thehole in the windshield. [Exhibit 44]. The second photograph is taken outside the driver's side ofthe windshield, displaying a suggestion of the dashboard through the hole in the windshield.[Exhibit 47]. Consequently, as Mr. Meyer pointed out, there is no adequate documentation ofwhether there were any marks on the dashboard.

The TBTA recordings only chart the course of claimant's car for some uncalculated timeperiod after the impact with Exhibit 4 as the HOV lanes end, and as she headed toward thetollbooths, miraculously making it through a toll lane without a head-on impact before coming torest. The TBTA recordings, particularly the more complete version [Exhibit 8], shows thatbetween the time the contractor is seen to have finished opening up the HOV lanes at around6:00 a.m. and the time claimant's car is first seen at 6:11:14 a.m. as it seems to pass under or nearthe overpass and heads toward the cones and the barrier along the right side with both theheadlights operational, approximately 16 buses passed through the HOV lane, and countlesstrucks proceeded inbound and outbound - including a flatbed truck - along the lane adjacent tothe movable HOV barrier where claimant would have been driving.

On the whole, while Detective Maiello was clearly a seasoned investigator, there wereomissions in his methodology. He first examined the scene more than four hours after theaccident, and did not appear to take into account that the lanes had been open an additional twohours after the accident occurred. While the photographs that he directed be taken may havefairly and accurately depicted the portion of the Gowanus beyond the crest heading toward thetollbooths and the tunnel, they did not show the area before the crest, or all areas of the roadwayin both directions, nor did he walk in the area before the crest or on the opposite side of the road.He did not pursue information from other drivers. He took no samples and performed nocalculations that might have otherwise moved him from what clearly was his working hypothesis,and simultaneously his ultimate conclusion, about the happening of the accident.

While there were some deficits in Mr. Meyer's testimony as well, those deficits arealmost directly derived from the less than thorough investigation made at the time of the accidentto determine where it began, and its general mechanics. On the whole, his explanations of thelikelihood of the object having been propelled from a height in order to achieve the degree offorce necessary to penetrate the windshield are credited.

There was no evidence that Exhibit 4 was in the roadway for any period of time and wasnot picked up.

Nonetheless, even if Exhibit 4 was in the roadway for an appreciable period of time orfell from a height, its presence alone and the happening of this accident does not make the Stateliable. To so hold would render the State an insurer. This is because, most significantly, themaintenance efforts described were reasonable ones, allowing the construction project chargedwith making rehabilitative repairs to go forward (adequately repaired roadways being anotherconcern vis-à-vis the traveling public), and placing the work crews in a position to see anydangerous debris and remove it every time the HOV lanes were moved.

Drivers Ed Schools Near Me

Grace/El Sol personnel, personnel from Urbitran, and State personnel were present everytime the lanes were moved, and were required to remove and did remove potential hazards to thetraveling public as they were observed. There was no showing that somehow these people werenot diligent or did not place themselves in a position to see what could be seen. No evidence ofprior relevant accident history along this roadway, of any complaints about dangerous debris, orother evidence, was presented to allow the Court to infer that the State had actual notice of anypotentially dangerous debris that was not being addressed by the daily supervision and inspectionof the HOV lanes. At most, there was an awareness on the part of the defendant that urban debrissuch as pebbles and dirt would be on the highway, and that other objects might be present as wellgiven the volume of traffic traveling the road daily, and that if such objects were present and seenby those in a position to see them, they would be removed. The defendant was not negligent, andany harm suffered by claimant was not proximately caused by defendant's breach of a duty ofcare.

While it is distressing that Ms. Farrell was harmed, and it is no less than miraculous thatshe survived, the State is nonetheless not liable for this unfortunate accident.

All trial motions not otherwise disposed of are hereby denied and Claim Number 107707is hereby dismissed.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.

May 10, 2010

White Plains, New York

THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA

Judge of the Court of Claims

1. References herein to the transcripts of the three days of testimony are to T1, T2 and T3 - representingNovember 9, 2009, November 13, 2009 and November 16, 2009, respectively - and the page number.

2. Section 104-a of the Highway Law provides, in pertinent part: 'The commissioner of transportation shallhave the power to designate any highway under construction or reconstruction under the supervision of thecommissioner of transportation . . . as a restricted highway, maintaining traffic thereon, subject to the provisions ofarticle thirty-seven of the vehicle and traffic law.' Section 1625(a) of Article 37 of the Vehicle and Traffic Lawprovides:

'The department of transportation . . . with respect to any restricted highway, as defined in section one hundredfour-a of the highway law, may prohibit, restrict or regulate traffic on, or pedestrian use of any such highway.'

Farrell Drivers Ed Staten Island Outage Map

3. See previous footnote.

Moore Drivers Ed Staten Island

4. In finding that there was a triable issue of fact relative to constructive notice of the recurring dangerouscondition sufficient to avoid summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's lawsuit, the Appellate Division said: 'Inaddition, because plaintiff specifically identified the source of the recurring wet condition as the leaky pipe, and,further, produced evidence that such dangerous condition was in a location spatially remote from an exteriorstairwell that is exposed to the elements, this case is distinguishable from those cited by the Transit Authorityholding that a landlord is not required to provide a constant, ongoing remedy when an alleged dangerous condition iscaused by moisture tracked indoors during a storm (see e.g. Solazzo v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 734, 735[2005] . . . ). Unlike Solazzo, the plaintiff in this case identified a specific dangerous condition, to wit, the leakingpipe; he did not premise his claim of notice on a 'general awareness that the stairs . . . become wet during inclementweather' (Solazzo, 6 NY3d at 735).' Talavera v New York City Tr. Auth., supra at 136.

Farrell Drivers Ed Staten Island Registration