Mohan v State of New York

Mohan v State of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 06951 Decided on October 24, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 24, 2013
Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Clark, JJ. 10860-
115997 10860A 116254

[*1]Paul Mohan, et al., Claimants-Appellants,

v

The State of New York, Defendant-Respondent.




Lisa M. Comeau, Garden City, for appellants.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Bethany
A. Davis Noll of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2012, dismissing the claims after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"In a nonjury trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses" (Watts v State of New York, 25 AD3d 324, 324 [1st Dept 2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, there exists no basis to disturb the trial court's determination that the opening in the median barrier on the Hutchinson River Parkway did not constitute a dangerous condition. The record shows that the court carefully considered the conflicting expert testimony and its decision to find the conclusions of the State's expert to be more credible was supported by the evidence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 24, 2013

CLERK