- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Whitney v. Lawson
- Docket
- 2022-06324
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03332
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
In June 2015, Henry Whitney was injured when the motorcycle he was riding struck a low-hanging communications wire on Sullivan Street in Bay Shore. A branch had allegedly broken off a tree located at 1054 Sullivan Street — a premises owned by Antoine Williams — and had been hanging on the communications wire for days before the accident. Whitney commenced an action against, among others, Williams (whose estate was later substituted after his death, represented by administrator Barbara A. Lawson) and CSC Holdings, LLC, which owned and installed the communications wire.
Both Lawson and CSC moved separately for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County denied both motions, and the defendants appealed and cross-appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the denial of both motions for summary judgment. As to Lawson (the property owner), the court applied the standard governing liability for fallen trees: “a property owner will only be held liable for a tree that falls outside of his or her premises and injures another if he or she knew or should have known of the defective condition of the tree.” The court found that Lawson failed to establish, prima facie, that Williams lacked constructive notice of the tree’s defective condition. The branch had been hanging on the wire for days — potentially visible to anyone observing the tree — raising questions about whether the defect existed for a sufficient length of time to be discoverable.
As to CSC Holdings (the wire owner), the court similarly found that CSC failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of the defective condition of the communications wire. The low-hanging wire, caused by the fallen branch, may have been visible and apparent to CSC’s employees or agents prior to the accident.
Takeaways
This case illustrates the application of constructive notice principles to an unusual fact pattern involving the interaction between a property owner’s tree and a utility company’s communications wire. Both the property owner and the wire owner bear potential liability: the property owner for a defective tree condition, and the wire owner for a defective wire condition. When the defect — a branch hanging on a wire, pulling it low enough to strike a passing motorcyclist — existed for days before the accident, both defendants face questions about whether they had constructive notice.
The decision underscores that summary judgment is inappropriate when the movant fails to affirmatively establish the absence of constructive notice. The burden is on the movant to prove that the defect was not visible and apparent or did not exist for a sufficient period to be discovered. When the evidence suggests the condition persisted for days, the question of constructive notice is typically one for the factfinder.
Why It Matters
For property owners and utilities alike, this case highlights the ongoing duty to monitor and maintain trees and infrastructure that could create hazardous conditions. A fallen branch left hanging on a wire for days creates a foreseeable risk of injury to passersby, and both the tree owner and the wire owner may be held responsible if they had constructive notice of the condition. The decision encourages proactive monitoring and prompt remediation of hazards that develop on or near property boundaries.