Farrell v. StateFarrell v. State
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds “warranted by the facts,” bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony (Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; see DePaula v State of New York, 82 AD3d 827 [2011]; Bryant v State of New York, 77 AD3d 875, 876 [2010]; Stevens v State of New York, 47 AD3d 624, 625 [2008]; Domanova v State of New York, 41 AD3d 633, 634 [2007]).
Here, the trial court’s determination that the claimant failed to establish her claim to recover damages for personal injuries was warranted by the facts, and we decline to disturb it. Contrary to the claimant’s contention, she failed to establish that the State breached its duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition (see Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]; Lopes v Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623 [1978]; Fiege v State of New York, 189 AD2d 748 [1993]). Constructive notice of a dangerous condition may not be established through the State’s general awareness that debris may exist on the highway (see Hart v State of New York, 43 AD3d 524, 525 [2007]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.