Opinion
# 2018-044-009 Claim No. 121429
09-11-2018
FRANK LAWYER III v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
HANSON LAW FIRM, P.C. BY: Kristie H. Hanson, Esq., of counsel HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Mark Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
After trial, claim for negligence in design/construction/maintenance of intersection was dismissed where defendant was entitled to qualified immunity based upon its studies and ongoing attempts at remediation, which were in compliance with regulations and appear to have been made based upon reasonable and appropriate design decisions. Further, the proximate cause of the accident was the failure of another vehicle to stop at the intersection.
Case information
| UID: | 2018-044-009 |
| Claimant(s): | FRANK LAWYER III |
| Claimant short name: | LAWYER |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 121429 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE |
| Claimant's attorney: | HANSON LAW FIRM, P.C. BY: Kristie H. Hanson, Esq., of counsel |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Mark Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | September 11, 2018 |
| City: | Binghamton |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant filed this claim seeking recovery for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in its design, construction and maintenance of the intersection of State Route 30A and Route 7 (the Intersection) in the Town of Schoharie, Schoharie County. Claimant was injured on June 19, 2010 when the vehicle in which he was traveling (which was being driven by his wife) collided with another vehicle in the middle of the Intersection. Trial of the claim was held on November 28-29, 2017 in the Binghamton District of the Court of Claims, and the parties subsequently submitted written memoranda to the Court. This decision addresses the issue of liability only.
At trial, claimant testified that the accident took place at approximately 11:30 a.m. on June 19, 2010, a clear day. He was the passenger in a vehicle being driven by his wife (Donna Sutton), and they were traveling west on Route 7. He stated that there is a traffic control light in the Intersection which had a flashing yellow caution light on the Route 7 east-west direction, and a flashing red stop light on the Route 30A north-south direction. He said that as they were traveling through the Intersection, he noticed another vehicle traveling on Route 30A toward the Intersection, which he later learned was driven by Elizette Quadros (the Quadros Vehicle). The Quadros Vehicle slowed, but did not stop, and then sped up and collided with claimant's vehicle. Claimant's car was driven into some signs and went over an embankment.
On cross-examination, claimant said he lives about a mile away from the Intersection and traveled through it approximately twice a day. Curiously, he said that he had never driven through it on Route 30A, only on Route 7. He said he did not have enough time to warn his wife about the oncoming vehicle, and his wife did not brake before the impact.
Claimant further stated that he and his wife have a police scanner at home, as well as living across the street from the fire station, so he was aware that there were accidents at that location about twice a month.
Donna Sutton, claimant's wife, also testified. She said that she saw the Quadros Vehicle before the collision and thought that it would stop, but it did not. There was very little time between seeing the vehicle and the impact. She was very familiar with the Intersection. She said due to her position as a dispatcher for the State Police, she was aware of many accidents there, estimating the frequency as being at least two per month.
On cross-examination, she said that she tried to avoid the Quadros Vehicle, but there was not enough time to do it. She acknowledged that there is a stop sign on Route 30A, but described it as being "quite a distance from where the Intersection actually is."
All quotes herein are taken from the Court's notes of the proceeding, unless otherwise indicated.
Lawrence Levine, a licensed professional engineer with experience in the field of accident investigation and reconstruction, testified on behalf of claimant. He recounted the history of the Intersection, stating that it was built in 1978 without flashing lights, but with stop signs and stop line painted on the roadway. In 1988, flashing lights were installed: one red facing each way on Route 30A, and one yellow facing each way on Route 7. He noted that when the flashers were installed, the stop line was not moved. He believed the stop signs were moved farther back each way on Route 30A in 1996. He said there had been 44 serious accidents in 3 years in the Intersection, and it was on the Priority Investigation Location (PIL) and High Accident Location (HAL) lists.
Levine asserted that the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that a traffic signal should be 40 feet away from the stop line, unless there is some physical reason why that cannot be done, and the light should not be less than 15 feet from the stop line. He stated that there are two signals in the Intersection facing northbound traffic, one on the right and one on the left. He measured the signal head on the right as being 6½ feet from the stop line, and the one on the left at 22½ feet from the stop line. He said that a vehicle stopped at the stop line could not see the red signal, and because of that the driver would believe they were in the middle of the Intersection and accelerate.
A traffic safety study was performed by DOT in 2004 (the Safety Study). The Safety Study suggested two potential alternative solutions to the high accident volume at the Intersection: re-striping to change the lane configuration, or a roundabout. Levine opined that this study was "fatally flawed." Levine said that the drawing of the Intersection, which was made part of the Safety Study, appeared to be a drawing of the conditions from 1978 or 1988.He asserted that the drawing did not depict a flashing light, showed stop signs at the wrong locations, and also depicted the stop lines in the wrong location. Levine concluded that either no one actually went to the Intersection to look at it, or else did visit the Intersection but pulled old drawings out of the file and inserted them into the report. He further stated that he did not think that anyone ever looked at the location of the stop lines vis-a-vis the flashing lights, even though that should have been reviewed as part of the Safety Study.
Defendant's Exhibit C.
Id. at 3.
Claimant's Exhibit 25 at 14-15.
Levine pointed out that the Safety Study noted that "[t]he lack of traffic and the wide open nature of the [I]ntersection may have resulted in some drivers . . . having difficulty perceiving the speed and distance of the vehicles approaching on Rt. 7. They would stop and look but then proceed without 'seeing' the oncoming vehicles leading to a relatively high number of right angle accidents." Levine said that the situation described in that portion of the Safety Study was directly attributable to not having the flashing light in the correct place relative to the stop line. He said that drivers would pull into the Intersection, think they had already gone through the light and become confused. Levine stated that when he went to the Intersection, he stopped at the stop line and could not see the red signal. He said it was "disconcerting" and that a driver would "feel like they were in the middle of the Intersection." He speculated that Quadros, an elderly (74 year-old) woman, was probably having a bad day with some confusion. He again described the Safety Study as being "flawed," as well as "inherently unreasonable" and "inadequate."
Defendant's Exhibit C at 3.
Levine also testified that failing to have some of the "big box" store warehouses in the area conduct traffic studies as a condition of obtaining development approval was unreasonable. During discovery one study was produced by defendant, but that project (for a Lowes warehouse) was never constructed and the study only examined the intersection directly in front of the proposed building. He stated that tractor trailers delivering goods to the warehouses in the area would all use the Route 30A/Route 7 Intersection, and studies should have been performed to ensure that the Intersection could accommodate the trucks.
Levine reviewed aerial photos of the Intersection showing the relative positions of the flashing signals, stop lines and stop signs. He indicated that he had overlaid one of the photos with a transparency containing the "cone of vision" which illustrates the MUTCD requirements regarding where to put a stop line relative to a stop light, as shown in Figure 279-3 of the MUTCD. Levine opined that, based upon that requirement, all of the flashing signals would have been at least 15 feet away from the stop line, rather than the 6.5 feet distance of the right-most signal, and that a distance of 40 feet would have been optimal.
Claimant's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
Claimant's Exhibit 6.
A scoping study prepared by DOT in 2009 (the Scoping Study) to address further potential remedies for the continuing safety deficiencies at the Intersection suggested six possible alternatives (although the first alternative, apparently not seriously considered, was to do nothing). The alternatives included minor reconstruction to the two-way stop, a four-way stop with four-way flashing lights and incidental reconstruction, a four-way stop with four-way flashing lights and minor reconstruction, a three-color traffic signal, and a roundabout involving major construction. Levine commented that the Scoping Study indicated that the four-way stop with incidental reconstruction alternative would have a projected construction cost of $100,000, with an annual safety benefit of $116,000, and a benefit cost ratio of 8.96. He said that since a benefit cost ratio of more than 1 is desirable, a ratio of 8.96 is a "no brainer." He noted that the four-way stop with minor reconstruction set forth in the Scoping Study would have had a higher construction cost ($520,000), but would still have a benefit cost ratio over 1. The three-color signal option would cost $200,000, with a benefit cost ratio of 1.49. Finally, a roundabout would cost slightly over a million dollars and would have a benefit cost ratio of 1.60. He believed that the four-way stop with incidental reconstruction alternative was eventually constructed in 2016, but indicated that the stop line location still has not been changed. He asserted that defendant had "all this information in 2002 or 2004," but did not act on it until 2016. He stated that in any event, a study would not have been required in order to move the stop line, that in fact a maintenance person could have done it. Levine then listed the various versions and sections of the MUTCD upon which he relied in reaching his conclusions.
Defendant's Exhibit D.
In this instance, "minor reconstruction" would have included channelization, speed reduction, and/or a reduction in the overall size of the Intersection (id. at 7). "Incidental reconstruction" would have meant virtually no change to the size or design of the Intersection (id.).
Id.
Id. at 9.
Id.
Construction was apparently completed in 2013, according to defendant's expert.
On cross-examination, Levine was asked which section of the MUTCD required that the stop line be 40 feet away from the signal. He responded that the diagram depicted in Figure 279-3 had an indication of a minimum of 40 feet, and that the layout is described in Section 272.12 (f) of the MUTCD. He said that the subsections contained therein which pertain to the stop line indicate that there are placement requirements when a signal is involved, but if no signal is present the stop line can be placed at the most desirable location. When asked whether there is any difference in the placement of the stop line depending on the presence of a three-color signal versus a flashing signal, Levine responded that it would be "pretty much the same criteria." He further commented that the stop line was not necessarily too close to the Intersection, it was simply too close to the signal face. He indicated that if the signal had been moved away from the stop line, that would have resolved the problem.
On redirect, Levine again opined that defendant's design of the Intersection, the lack of currently drawn plans, and defendant's failure to take remedial action to improve the Intersection were the proximate cause of the accident. Further, he concluded that defendant's handling of the situation was inadequate and inherently unreasonable, and that defendant created a condition that was in violation of the intent and meaning of the MUTCD relating to flashing signals.
Claimant rested his case at the close of Levine's testimony. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that claimant failed to establish that defendant breached its duty to properly design and maintain the Intersection, that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under these circumstances, and that to the extent that defendant may have been negligent, such negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. Claimant's counsel responded that defendant was not entitled to immunity due to the inherent unreasonable nature of its actions. She argued that the fact that defendant performed studies, but then did nothing to remedy the safety issues, and further did not justify why it did nothing, formed a basis for the loss of qualified immunity. The Court reserved decision on the motion.
William Logan, P.E., testified on defendant's behalf. Logan was employed as an engineer by DOT from 1970 through 2005, and his final position with DOT was Regional Traffic Engineer for DOT's Region 1. He has since acted as a private consultant, and has performed numerous highway safety investigations.
Logan stated that if a possible safety defect is identified with a roadway, DOT will conduct a highway safety investigation. If that investigation leads to a determination that safety improvements need to be made, a project scoping report is then created. This report will set forth the nature of the modifications and alternatives that could be made in order to improve the situation, and will eventually result in a project which may be performed at a later date. He noted that there were changes made in 2004 to improve safety at the Intersection, pursuant to the 2004 Safety Study. He said that when improvements are performed to correct a safety deficiency, DOT waits five years to perform another safety study to see whether the implemented corrections were successful at ameliorating the condition. The five-year span is to give motorists time to adjust to the new conditions and then get a sufficient number of accident records to determine whether the modifications achieved their goal. In this case, the re-striping of the Intersection and elimination of the median was done in 2004 in response to the 2004 Safety Study, and then when the Intersection was found to still have safety deficiencies five years later, the 2009 Scoping Report was prepared.
Logan also noted that when modifications are made to the MUTCD, DOT is not required to go out to every location which might be impacted by the changes and make modifications. Instead, the next time a study is performed, the version of the MUTCD in effect at that time must be applied.
Logan stated that DOT had continuously monitored the accident history at the Intersection, and made appropriate safety improvements in 1988, 1996 and 2004 (as well as in 2013, after the accident). In 1988, a flashing signal light was installed. In 1996, after regulations had changed to require two signals at this type of intersection, a second flashing signal was installed. In 2004, Route 7 was narrowed by removing the median, putting in a right-turn lane and simultaneously re-striping the road, as recommended by the 2004 Safety Study. He said that no flashing signals were shown in the sketch appended to the 2004 Safety Study because it was simply a sketch of the signage located around the Intersection, and there would not be a need to indicate the location of a signal in a sketch depicting the approximate location of signs.
Defendant's Exhibit C at 11-12.
Logan listed the traffic control devices in use for northbound Route 30A at the Intersection at the time of the accident. There was an oversized (4 feet by 4 feet) "Stop Ahead" sign, which was located 830 feet before the Intersection. There was an oversized (4 feet by 4 feet) "Stop" sign located approximately 30 feet before the Intersection. There were two flashing red signals, with 12 inch lenses (the maximum size), one of which was located over the Intersection as required by the MUTCD. There were also pavement markings, including a stop line and the word "STOP" painted on the pavement prior to reaching the stop line. Logan stated that the location and size of the signs, flashing signals and pavement markings were all in conformance with the MUTCD, and were all the maximum size permitted. Logan also said that the maximum distance allowed from the stop sign to the Intersection by the applicable MUTCD regulations was 50 feet.
MUTCD § 211.3 (b) (1), Defendant's Exhibit F at 10-11.
Logan said that the purpose of a red flashing signal is to inform approaching motorists well ahead that there is "a stop condition and possible conflicts ahead." He stated that under the MUTCD, there is no correlation required between the location of the stop line and the location of the flashing signal. He said that once a motorist has stopped, there is no further purpose for the flashing signal, and it is not necessary for the motorist to see it. He distinguished the flashing signal situation from one involving a traffic control (three-light) signal. He said that in the latter case, it is necessary to see the signal in order for the motorist to know when to stop and when to go. He testified that the MUTCD regulations regarding flashing signals require that the placement of at least one of the two signals be over an intersection, and that is the only location requirement under the MUTCD. He stated that in his opinion, the flashing signal conformed to the MUTCD and was clearly visible for a quarter of a mile.
Logan noted that the MUTCD regulations regarding flashing signals and traffic control signals are contained in separate sections.
Logan further opined that the stop line was placed as close to the Intersection as it could be placed without conflicting with traffic on the shoulder of Route 7, conformed with the MUTCD, and was the maximum size allowed. He further noted that it was placed at a location that provided the maximum sight distance looking right and left, whereas placing it further back would limit left/right sight distance. Logan testified that Section 261.12 (b) (3) (iii) of the MUTCD pertaining to stop lines provides: "Stop lines at intersections should be located four to thirty feet from the edge of the intersecting roadway. A location close to the intersection is preferred." He noted that in this instance, the stop line is 10 feet from the intersecting roadway, which is as close as it can be placed without conflicting with the shoulder of Route 7. Accordingly, he opined, it was at the preferred location according to the manual. As a general matter, the determination regarding exactly where to place the stop line, within that range, is made through a traffic engineering study. Logan said he had done many of those throughout the years, and they involve going to a location and determining how close to the intersection you can place the line without interfering with pedestrian, bicycle or turning truck traffic.
Defendant's Exhibit F at 2.
Logan also stated that the only regulation in the MUTCD regarding the placement of a flashing signal is set forth in Section 274, and requires that the signal be suspended over the roadway within an intersection. Consequently, he opined, the locations of the flashing signals at this Intersection were in accordance with the MUTCD. He said that there are many dimensions and diagrams in the MUTCD (such as Figure 279-3, cited by Levine) which address stop line location where a three-color signal is involved, but those are inapplicable to intersections with flashing signals.
Id. at 8.
Section 274.2 (c) (1).
Logan also stated that the location of the stop sign is not related to the location of the stop line. The sign placement needs to be at a point on the approaching roadway where it can be most easily visible. The function of the sign is to tell motorists in advance that they must stop, whereas the line needs to be as close to an intersection as possible, within the limitations described in his previous testimony.
Logan reviewed the 2009 Scoping Report, and noted that the benefit cost ratio of any particular alternative is only one of the factors considered in determining what action should be taken. Items such as community input, location and speed are also considered, but in the end the determination is based upon the judgment of the engineers planning the project as to what will be the best alternative for any particular location. The project schedule for this study indicates that whatever alternative was chosen, construction would not have been done until at least 2012, well after the 2010 accident at issue in this case.
Defendant's Exhibit D at 10.
Logan opined that the 2004 Safety Study and the 2009 Scoping Study were both conducted appropriately for the nature of the safety concerns at that location, and were done in accordance with DOT standards, both in terms of how they were conducted, and the time frames in which the studies took place, as well as the time between the 2009 Scoping Study and the remedial actions taken pursuant to that study.
Shortly after claimant's counsel commenced cross-examination of Logan, it became apparent that some of the documentation obtained by claimant was incomplete. By consent of the parties, trial was adjourned pending further disclosure. The parties notified the Court when disclosure was complete and claimant's expert had completed his review of the additional documentation. The Court offered to continue the trial at that point, but the parties requested the opportunity to sum up their positions through memoranda of law, rather than continue with oral testimony, and that request was granted by the Court.
Claimant's previous counsel inexplicably made some requests through the formal discovery process, and different requests through the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). It appears that the responses to the FOIL requests were appropriately redacted pursuant to Public Officers Law, and those redactions were not appealed. Because these requests are handled by completely different agencies, the FOIL responders would not have known that these requests were being made during the course of litigation. Further, it appears that claimant's previous counsel misplaced a large portion of the file at some point, and it is unclear whether that was ever located. Exacerbating the situation was the fact that there was a succession of attorneys representing the parties on both sides.
Turning to an analysis of the claim, it is well-settled that the State owes to the traveling public a nondelegable duty to design, construct, and maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances (Friedman v State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283 [1986]). Nevertheless, the State is not an insurer of the safety of its roads, and the mere happening of an accident does not permit an inference of negligence (see Tomassi v Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97 [1978]; Boulos v State of New York, 82 AD2d 930, 931 [3d Dept 1981], affd 56 NY2d 714 [1982]). Any roadway can be made safer, but the State's duty has generally been met when users of the highway exercising due care can travel over the roadway safely (Tomassi, 46 NY2d at 97; Boulos, 82 AD2d at 931). Further, it should be noted that the State "need not comply with design standards adopted after the construction of a highway unless it undertakes 'significant repair or reconstruction' that would allow compliance with the new standards" (Hay v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1190, 1191 [3d Dept 2009], quoting Preston v State of New York, 6 AD3d 835, 835-836 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 601 [2004]).
In order to recover, a claimant has the burden to show that defendant was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (Bernstein v City of New York, 69 NY2d 1020, 1021-1022 [1987]; Hamilton v State of New York, 277 AD2d 982 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 704 [2001]; Marchetto v State of New York, 179 AD2d 947 [3d Dept 1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 751 [1992]; Demesmin v Town of Islip, 147 AD2d 519 [2d Dept 1989]). To establish defendant's negligence, the claimant must show that defendant either created a dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to take reasonable measures to correct it (Brooks v New York State Thruway Auth., 73 AD2d 767 [3d Dept 1979], affd 51 NY2d 892 [1980]; Rinaldi v State of New York, 49 AD2d 361 [3d Dept 1975]). However, the State has qualified immunity from liability with respect to discretionary decisions made in the course of planning and designing a highway, such that liability cannot be imposed unless those decisions were based on a study that was plainly inadequate and/or the plan or design itself lacked a reasonable basis (Friedman, 67 NY2d at 283-284; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 589 [1960]).
Initially, although the claim alleges that defendant was negligent in the design and/or construction of the Intersection, there was no testimony that the Intersection was initially constructed based upon an unreasonable design, or was designed without adequate study (see e.g. Weiss, 7 NY2d at 589; 145 Route 303 v State of New York, UID No. 2005-029-483 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Apr. 7, 2005]). Without any evidence to that effect, defendant is immune from liability for any cause of action pertaining to the initial design and construction.
Claimant's contentions essentially amount to the following. First, the design of the Intersection as it existed at the time of the accident in 2010 created a dangerous condition by putting the stop line both too close to the flashing signal, such that the signal could not be seen from the stop line, and too close to the Intersection itself. Levine argued the placement of the flashing signal, combined with the location of the stop line, was in violation of the intent and meaning of the MUTCD. Levine also contended that the design plan was inadequate because the sketch attached to the 2004 Safety Study did not contain a reference to or depiction of the flashing signal. Finally, Levine asserted that defendant's failure to take remedial action to improve the Intersection constituted negligence. He argued that the Intersection design was the proximate cause of the accident, speculating that Quadros was elderly and confused due to the layout.
With regard to the first contention, it is clear that the design of the Intersection at the time of the accident was in compliance with the MUTCD. One of the flashing signals was located directly over the Intersection in accordance with Section 274.2 (c) (1). The maximum size stop sign was approximately 30 feet away from the Intersection, well within the 50 feet maximum set forth in Section 211.3 (b) (1). The stop line was located approximately 10 feet from the right edge of Route 7 where it intersects with Route 30A, clearly within the 4 to 30 foot requirement indicated in Section 261.12 (b) (3) (iii). Moreover, it is readily apparent that, despite Levine's assertion, Section 272.12 (f) and its accompanying Figure 279-3 pertain to traffic control signals (such as three-light signals), rather than to flashing signals. As Logan indicated, the purpose of a flashing signal is to warn a driver in advance that they will be required to come to a stop. As a practical matter, anyone who has ever driven a vehicle up to an intersection which contains a flashing red signal will be aware that, once the vehicle has stopped, the driver is concentrating on the traffic to the left and right, rather than on the signal. In fact, observation of the signal would be counterproductive, as it would take the driver's attention away from approaching vehicles.
Levine's argument that the stop line was placed too close to the Intersection is belied by the pictures. The DOT Photo Log, which has numerous photos taken several feet apart on the approach to the Intersection on Route 30A as traveled by Quadros, shows that the stop line is placed prior to the Intersection, and at a point where a driver can see to the left and right without the obstruction of the guide rails present at the Intersection. If the stop line had been placed farther back, the rails would obscure the sight line.
Defendant's Exhibit A.
Levine also repeatedly contended that DOT took no action to improve the safety issues at the Intersection. Even apart from the 1988 installation of the flashing signals and the 1996 improvements, he inexplicably ignored the changes made to the Intersection in October 2004 in response to the 2004 Safety Study, which included elimination of the median, channelization, and re-striping. The Safety Study stated "[i]t is anticipated that this will allow operators on Rt 30A and [Route 7] approaches to better assess approaching traffic. Should [this] not result in effective accident reduction, construct . . . [a] roundabout." As set forth in the deposition of William Seaman, another DOT engineer, the lower-cost approach would have been implemented and evaluated prior to a much more expensive remedial action, because "[s]ometimes accident patterns can be corrected with simple, low-cost countermeasures." When it became apparent that this had not sufficiently resolved the problem, DOT undertook the 2009 Scoping Study, and in 2013 made improvements based upon one of the alternatives set forth therein. In short, defendant's studies and ongoing attempts at remediation were both in compliance with regulations and appear to have been made based upon reasonable and appropriate design decisions. Defendant is clearly entitled to the qualified immunity set forth in Weiss (7 NY2d at 589).
Defendant's Exhibit C at 1.
Claimant's Exhibit 29 at 21.
Moreover, it is also clear that the proximate cause of the accident was Quadros failing to stop at the Intersection, as required by multiple traffic control devices (the stop ahead sign, the stop sign, the stop line, and the flashing red signal). Defendant could take any possible precautionary measure, but if a driver does not comply with the traffic control devices, accidents are inevitable.
The Police Accident Report states that Quadros "enters the intersection, disregarding [the] red flashing light and into the path of [claimant's vehicle. Quadros was] unfamiliar with area [and] was not paying attention to the flashing red light" (Defendant's Exhibit B at 1). --------
Based upon the foregoing, Claim No. 121429 is hereby dismissed. Any motions not previously determined are hereby denied. Let judgment be entered accordingly.
September 11, 2018
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims