Carobene v. City of Glen Cove, 2802/12

Cite as: Carobene v. City of Glen Cove, 2802/12, NYLJ 1202646597599, at *1 (Sup., NY, Decided February 28, 2014)

Read Summary of Decision

2802/12

Justice F. Dana Winslow

Decided: February 28, 2014

ATTORNEYS

Plaintiffs’ Attorney: Edelman, Krasin Jaye, PLLC.

Defendants’ Attorney: Sokloloff Stern, LLP, City of Glen Cove Trustee of the Morgan Memorial Park.

Defendants’ Attorney: Stewart Friedman, Gold Coast Cruisers, Inc.

The following papers having been read on the motion (numbered 1-3):

Notice of Motion 1

Notice of Cross Motion 2

Affirmation in Opposition 3

 

*1

 

Defendants THE CITY OF GLEN COVE (“CITY”) and TRUSTEES OF MORGAN MEMORIAL PARK (“TRUSTEES”) (collectively, the “CITY Defendants”) move for an Order pursuant to CPLR §3212 granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them. Defendant GOLD COAST CRUISERS (“GOLD COAST”) moves for an Order granting leave to tile the instant untimely cross-motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, for consideration of the instant cross-motion and an Order granting summary judgment dismissing the Summons and Complaint and all cross claims against it.

BACKGROUND

This personal injury action arises from a “trip and fall” accident (the “Accident”) that allegedly occurred on June 26, 2011 at Morgan Memorial Park in Glen Cove, NY (the “Park”). The Park, a 40-acre parcel of waterfront real property, was deeded to the defendant TRUSTEES by the prior owner, J.P Morgan In 1932, the TRUSTEES leased the premises to the defendant CITY for a term of 999 years. The lease agreement between the TRUSTEES and the CITY obligated the CITY to maintain the Park at its

 

*2

 

own expense, and to indemnify the TRUSTEES for any liability arising in connection with the use of the Park.

Defendant GOLD COAST, a recreational car club, sponsored an annual car show at the Park since 1996. Plaintiff states that, on the date of the Accident, she was at the Park attending the car show. She claims that at about 11:00 a.m., she was walking across a grassy area when she was caused to trip and fall as a result of a depressed area or trench in the grass. Four months after the Accident, plaintiff estimated that the trench measured approximately eight inches long, six inches wide, and five inches deep (Tr. General Municipal Law §50-h hearing, October 28, 2011, pp. 51-52 [Mot. Exh. J]). Over a year later, plaintiff estimated that the trench measured approximately two feet long, one foot wide and eight to ten inches deep (Tr. EBT December 5, 2012, p. 51 [Mot. Exh. K]).

This action was commenced on March 5, 2012. The Complaint alleges that plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the negligence of one or more of the defendants. including, inter alia: improperly designing, constructing, maintaining, inspecting, repairing, or landscaping the area of the Park at which the incident occurred; failing to keep the area in a reasonably safe condition; failing to place warning signs or barricades to warn patrons of the alleged dangerous condition, and failing to properly remove a tree root and back fill the area with sufficient soil to provide a level walking surface.

The CITY Defendants bring the instant joint motion for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint on the grounds that (i) the CITY cannot be held liable for the alleged dangerous condition, insofar as it was a naturally occurring topographic condition, inherent to the nature of a park, which could reasonably have been anticipated by plaintiff; and (ii) the CITY neither had notice of, nor created, the alleged dangerous condition. GOLD COAST brings the instant cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint on the ground that GOLD COAST did not own, operate, control, maintain, manage or repair the grassy area of the Park at which plaintiff allegedly fell.

DISCUSSION

Motion by the CITY Defendants

Although the CITY Defendants have moved for summary judgment on two grounds, the evidence centers on the second ground; namely, that the CITY neither created the allegedly defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it prior to plaintiff’s accident. See Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; Sloane v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 AD3d 522. The CITY Defendants offer the

 

*3

 

deposition testimony of Darcy Belyea (“Belyea”), who was the Parks and Recreation Director for the City of Glen Cove for the last 17 years [Mot. Exh. G]. In response to the question of whether there had been any complaints about the condition of the grassy area in the thirty-day period prior to the date of the Accident, Belyea testified “I don’t recall, but likely, no.” [Mot. Exh. G, p.41]. Belyea stated that in the sixty-day period prior to the Accident, no one else had fallen or filed a Notice of Claim as a result of any condition on the grassy area. Prior to the date of the car show, Belyea maintains, she did not receive any complaints from anyone on behalf of GOLD COAST about the condition of the grassy area [Mot. Exh. G, pp. 40-41]. When shown photographs of the grassy area which plaintiff had identified as the site of her Accident, Belyea testified that she had never observed the depression in the grass which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall [Mot. Exh. G., p. 32].

The CITY Defendants also submit the deposition testimony of Sam Morano (“Morano”), a Grade 12 park maintainer for the City of Glen Cove Parks and Recreation Department, whose duties included mowing the grass at the Park [Motion Exh. H]. Morano testified that he mowed the grass in the area of the Accident two days before the car show. He did not observe the depression depicted in the photograph shown to him. The riding mower did not become stuck in any type of depression, rut or lower area of grass [Mot. Exh. H, pp. 14-16]. When asked if he had ever observed a depression in the area identified in the photograph, Morano answered “No.”

Plaintiff challenges the CITY Defendant’s proof regarding lack of notice on the ground that the CITY never demonstrated that it searched its own records and found that there were no prior written complaints. Plaintiff argues that Belyea’s testimony — that she personally received no complaints — does not prove that the CITY received no complaints.

The Court finds that both plaintiff and the CITY Defendants have failed to address a threshold issue in this matter; that is, the application of the local prior written notice law to the facts and circumstances at bar. The Court takes judicial notice of the Glen Cove City Charter §C4-4(B) which provides:

Damages due to certain city property being defective; notice to city required. No civil action shall be maintained against the City of Glen Cove for damages or to persons or properly sustained by reason of any defective parking field, garage, beach area, beach equipment, playground or playground equipment, ice rink or park property, swimming pool or golf course, no matter where situated, being unsafe, defective, Out of repair, dangerous or obstructed unless written notice of, by the witness to, the condition of such parking field, garage, beach area, beach equipment playground or playground equipment, ice rink or park property, swimming pool or golf course, was actually served upon the

 

*4

 

City Clerk or Director of Public Works in accordance with Subsection D herein, and there was a failure or neglect within a reasonable time after giving of such notice to repair or remove the defect, danger or obstruction complained of. Under no circumstances shall the City of Glen Cove be liable for injuries or damages to persons or property due to defective conditions of the aforesaid city property in the absence of such prior written notice to the city of the existence of the defective condition causing said injuries or damage. [Emphasis supplied.]

When a locality or municipality enacts a prior written notice law, as the CITY has done, prior written notice is a condition precedent to a plaintiff’s personal injury cause of action. The burden to plead and prove satisfaction of the prior written notice requirement lies with the plaintiff. Cipriano v. the City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 817. A plaintiff’s failure to plead same requires dismissal of the complaint as against the municipality. Id.

In the case at bar, the Court notes that plaintiff did not plead compliance with the prior written notice law in the Verified Complaint filed on March 5, 2012. The Court notes further that the CITY Defendants did plead lack of prior written notice in the Fourth Affirmative Defense of their joint Answer dated April 17, 2012. This provokes the question of why the CITY did not move to dismiss on the basis of the lack of prior written notice. (The Court is aware of no authority holding that a prior written notice law is inapplicable when the municipality leases, rather than owns, the property it possesses and controls. Compare Dick v. Town of Wappinger [63 A.D.3d 661], holding that prior written notice is inapplicable where a municipality functions in a proprietary capacity as landlord.)

In the absence of an obligation to keep written records, the evidence submitted by the CITY here — namely, Belyea’s testimony that she received no complaints, coupled with evidence of recent inspection might constitute prima facie proof of the lack of notice. See Lapin v. Atlantic Realty Apts. Co., LLC, 48 AD3d 337. See also, McMullen v. State of New York, 199 AD2d 603; Tripoli v. State of New York, 72 AD2d 823. Where a prior written notice law has been enacted, however, it manifests an intention on the part of the municipality to receive and maintain written records of complaints about the condition of the subject property. The omission of mention, let alone evidence, regarding such records on a motion to dismiss provokes further inquiry as to what those records did or did not contain. Even if the CITY can, and does, waive compliance with the prior written notice law, there remains the question of actual notice at common law, and the extent to which such records may support or contradict the evidence submitted on that question.

Insofar as the CITY has made prior written notice a condition precedent to litigation, and plaintiff has raised the issue regarding the CITY’s search of its records, the

 

*5

 

Court finds it necessary to dispose of this issue at the outset, before reaching other issues. Although the Court has found no authority requiring the issue of prior written notice to be addressed as a threshold matter, the Court has the discretion, if not the obligation, to dispose of the issues raised in a coherent and orderly fashion. The Court finds that the joint motion by the CITY Defendants obscures the issues, and disrupts the orderly determination of the parties’ respective obligations. Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the instant motion, with leave to renew. Any subsequent application must: (i) address the parties respective positions on the application of the prior Written law to the facts of this case, including the necessary documentary proof and legal authority; and (ii) articulate the relief sought and the party’s position on remaining issues, if any, contingent on the outcome of the prior written notice determination. To the extent that the positions of the CITY and the TRUSTEES diverge, they must be addressed separately.

Motion by GOLD COAST

It is undisputed that GOLD COAST’s motion, designated a cross-motion, is untimely. The Note of Issue was filed on March 29, 2013. GOLD COAST’s motion was filed on August 27, 2013, more than 120 after the filing of the Note of issue. See CPLR §3212(a). (The Court notes that the statutory time limitation was not shortened by local or Part rule, or Court order.) GOLD COAST moves, alternatively, (i) for leave to file its untimely motion upon good cause shown; or (ii) for consideration of the motion as an untimely cross-motion made in response to the timely flied motion of the CITY Defendants.

No motion may be made later than 120 days after the filing of the Note of Issue, except with leave of the Court upon good cause shown. CPLR §3212(a). The good cause necessary for filing a late summary judgment motion requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion; that is, a “satisfactory explanation” for the untimeliness. It is not enough to show that the motion is meritorious and the delay non-prejudicial. Brill v. City of New York, 2 NY3d 648. See also Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725.

One line of cases holds that an untimely cross-motion may be considered, without a showing of good cause, to the extent that the issues raised in the cross-motion are the same as those raised in a timely-filed and still-pending motion. See, e.g., Lapin v. Atlantic Realty Apts. Co., LLC, 48 AD3d 337; Filannino v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 34 AD3d 280. The Court notes, however, that a recent decision in the First Department calls into question, or at least limits the application of, this line of cases.

 

*6

 

In Kershaw v. Hospital For Special Surgery, [2013 N.Y. Slip. Op. 08548, 975 N.Y.S.2d 13], the panel distinguishes between a “correctly labeled” cross-motion, and one that is improperly labeled. “A cross motion is merely a motion by any party against the party who made the original motion, made returnable at the same time as the original motion.” Kershaw, 978 N.Y.S.2d at 22, citing Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Law of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR C2215.1 (internal quotations omitted). To the extent that a purported cross-motion is directed at the Complaint (as opposed to the cross-claims of the original moving co-defendant), it is not a proper cross-motion. Id., at 23. Kershaw held that an untimely but properly labeled cross-motion may still be considered under the rule in Filannino and others. An improperly labeled cross-motion, however — one that is not directed at the movant — is simply a motion, which, if untimely, may not be considered absent a showing of “good cause.” To hold otherwise, in the view of the Kershaw panel, would invite stragglers to latch on to a timely filed motion and to circumvent the rule in Brill, simply by labeling an untimely motion a cross-motion.

The Court notes an apparent discord between the rule in Kershaw and the Court’s power to “search the record” and grant summary judgment to any party without the necessity of a cross-motion. See CPLR 3212(b). In this Court’s view, however, these principles can be reconciled, or synthesized, into a new rule: summary judgment may he granted to any party without the necessity of a cross-motion, or even upon an “improperly labeled” cross-motion, but only upon consideration of the evidence presented on the timely-filed motion. If a party other than the original moving party seeks to submit evidence on its own behalf, it must do so in a timely motion or a proper cross-motion, or it must show good cause for its delay.

In the case at bar, the Court notes that GOLD COAST’s motion, designated as a cross-motion, is not a true cross-motion to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the Complaint The Court also notes that the issues raised in GOLD COAST’s motion are not identical to those raised in the CITY Defendant’s motion, insofar as GOLD COAST’s motion relies on a defense unavailable to the CITY Defendants — that is, that GOLD COAST owes no duty to plaintiff because it does not own, lease or operate the property on which the Accident occurred.

The Court finds, further, that the excuse offered by GOLD COAST for the untimely filing of its summary judgment motion does not rise to the level of “good cause.” The attorney for GOLD COAST states that he circulated a stipulation of discontinuance in March of 2013, and was hoping that he would not have to move for summary judgment. He states that “a couple of days” prior to the CITY Defendants filing their motion, counsel for the CITY Defendants requested permission to extend the time

 

*7

 

for all parties to move for summary judgment up to and including August 29, 2013. GOLD COAST’s counsel authorized the CITY Defendants’ attorney to sign his name on the stipulation. He realized, however, after the 120-day period expired, that the stipulation only extended the CITY Defendants’ time to move. Although this explanation is credible, and is neither perfunctory nor patently unreasonable, it does not explain why GOLD COAST waited to file its summary judgment motion until days before the expiration of the 120-day period, so that it had to rely on the extension of time afforded to the CITY Defendants. Counsel’s unsupported hope that the motion would be unnecessary is not a sufficiently reasonable excuse for the delay.

Nonetheless, the Court, in searching the record presented on the CITY Defendants’ timely motion for summary judgment, finds that GOLD COAST is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Complaint and cross-claims against it.

“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty owed by a defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and that such breach was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff. Liability for a dangerous condition on property is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control or special use of the property. The existence of one or more of these elements is sufficient to give rise to a duty to exercise reasonable care.” Nappi v. Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 19 A.D.3d 565 (internal quotations omitted). Where none of these factors is present, a party cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous or a defective condition. Suero-Sosa v. Cardona, 112 A.D.3d 706.

The CITY Defendants’ motion papers contain complete transcripts of the depositions of Belyea, Morano, and Donald M. Figliozzi (“Figliozzi”), president of GOLD COAST. The testimony, as well as the lease agreement between the TRUSTEES and the CITY [Motion Exh. F] demonstrate prima facie that GOLD COAST is not the owner or lessee of the Park, and has assumed no obligation to operate, control, maintain, or manage the Park’s property, or to repair any allegedly dangerous conditions thereon. (The doctrine of “special use” does not apply with respect to GOLD COAST’s sponsorship of the car show. See Breland v. Bayridge Air Rights, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 559.)

Further, Figliozzi testified that he and about thirty other GOLD COAST members conducted an independent inspection of the Park grounds before the event began. (He admits that they were primarily inspecting for cleanliness, and not looking for potential tripping hazards.) He did not observe the condition alleged by plaintiff. Further, no complaints were made to any member of GOLD COAST about the condition of the grass at the Park, and no member of GOLD COAST made any complaints to the CITY. (Tr. EBT February 7, 2013, pp.15-16, 21, 27-28 [Mot. Exh. I]).

 

*8

 

Plaintiff maintains that GOLD COAST “occupied” and “controlled” the grassy area of the Park on the day of the car show, and thus had a duty to maintain the area in a safe condition. Plaintiff does not cite, and the Court is not aware of, authority for the proposition underlying plaintiff’s argument; namely, that liability for injuries caused by a condition of the property may arise from the sponsorship of an event at such property, where the sponsor does not own, lease, manage or maintain the property, and where there is no evidence that the sponsor had the power to remedy the condition. Nonetheless, even if such duty is assumed, for purposes of discussion, the record establishes, prima facie, that GOLD COAST had no notice of the allegedly defective condition — the testimony indicates that no complaints were received (or made) by GOLD COAST, and that GOLD COAST inspected the area on the day of the event, prior to the Accident. See Lapin v. Atlantic Realty Apts. Co., LLC, 48 AD3d 337. See also, McMullen v. State of New York, 199 AD2d 603; Tripoli v. State of New York, 72 AD2d 823. There is nothing in the record that contradicts such testimony, nothing to show that GOLD COAST created the alleged condition, nothing to suggest that the defect was clearly visible on the day of the accident, and nothing to indicate how long the condition had existed prior to the Accident. Accordingly, the Court finds that on the record presented, GOLD COAST is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action against it.

CONCLUSION

The Court has considered the remaining contentions of the parties, and find them to be without merit or rendered academic by the determinations herein. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the CITY Defendants’ motion [Mot. Seq. 003] for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212 dismissing the action against them is dismissed, with leave to renew within 30 days of entry of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, that GOLD COAST’s motion [Mot. Seq. 004] is dismissed as untimely, but summary judgment dismissing the Complaint as against defendant GOLD COAST is granted, upon the Court’s search of the record pursuant to CPLR §3212(b).

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: Feb 28, 2014




Two Car Collision at Arterial Highway and Town Path

Glen Cove EMS and Glen Cove Police Department responded to an auto accident with multiple injuries at the intersection of the Arterial Highway and Town Path on Tuesday, Jan. 7 at 11:32 p.m.

The accident was a rear-end collision that involved two vehicles, according to the Glen Cove EMS Facebook page. Glen Cove EMS responded with three ambulances. EMS members treated a total of four trauma patients at the scene and transported them to North Shore Manhasset Hospital.

All four sustained non-life-threatening injuries ranging from back pain to a head injury.

Glen Cove EMS thanked the EMS members and police officers who braved the extreme cold and responded to the auto accident. At the time of the incident the air temperature was 8 degrees with a wind chill of -8 degrees.

Elderly Woman Injured in Hit and Run

A 63 year old woman was hit by a car while crossing Cedar Swamp Road at Alexander Place in Glen Cove on Friday at 3:19 p.m.

The woman suffered serious head and shoulder injuries and was transported to North Shore Manhasset Hospital by Glen Cove EMS. At this time the injuries do not appear life threatening.

The car that struck the victim left the scene of the accident but was followed by a witness who managed to supply police with a partial plate number with the first three letters of the license plate being FJL.  

The car is described as a bluish green Honda, possibly a mid 1990’s four door sedan. The vehicle had after market tires with sliver rims. The vehicle operator was described by witnesses as a female Hispanic wearing her hair in a pony tail.  

Anyone with information regarding this accident is requested to call the Glen Cove Police Department at 676-1000.

Woman Injured in Hit and Run

A 63 year old woman was hit by a car while crossing Cedar Swamp Road at Alexander Place in Glen Cove on Friday at 3:19 p.m.

The woman suffered serious head and shoulder injuries and was transported to North Shore Manhasset Hospital by Glen Cove EMS. At this time the injuries do not appear life threatening.

The car that struck the victim left the scene of the accident but was followed by a witness who managed to supply police with a partial plate number with the first three letters of the license plate being FJL.  

The car is described as a bluish green Honda, possibly a mid 1990’s four door sedan. The vehicle had after market tires with sliver rims. The vehicle operator was described by witnesses as a female Hispanic wearing her hair in a pony tail.  

Anyone with information regarding this accident is requested to call the Glen Cove Police Department at 676-1000.

Flanders Man One of 3 Injured in Orient Accident

Three were taken to the hospital after a car accident in Orient on Tuesday.

According to Southold Town police, the accident took place at 4:41 p.m., in front of Orient by the Sea on Route 25.

Bruce Cooper, 54, of Flanders, lost control of his truck and struck a car being driven by Joseph Bianco, of Glen Cove, who was in the car with Leslie Bianco, 63, also of Glen Cove, police said.

Orient Fire Department responded and transported all three to Eastern Long Island Hospital. No charges were filed, police said.

Three Injured in Orient Accident

Three were taken to the hospital after a car accident in Orient on Tuesday.

According to Southold Town police, the accident took place at 4:41 p.m., in front of Orient by the Sea on Route 25.

Bruce Cooper, 54, of Flanders, lost control of his truck and struck a car being driven by Joseph Bianco, of Glen Cove, who was in the car with Leslie Bianco, 63, also of Glen Cove, police said.

Orient Fire Department responded and transported all three to Eastern Long Island Hospital. No charges were filed, police said.

LIRR Video Aims to Keep Drivers From Tempting Fate

died in a horrific crash when she tried to drive around a railroad crossing gate in Brentwood.

The oncoming LIRR train pulverized Maldonado’s car, causing a huge fireball that burned their bodies beyond recognition.

There are more than 295 grade crossings in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the LIRR said, and so far in 2013 there have been nine incidents with cars or pedestrians being hit by trains. Six people have died, including one suicide. In 2012, six people also died in 11 incidents, though three were suicides, according to the LIRR.

Cops: Several taken to hospital in Glen Cove ambulance crash


Originally published: July 18, 2013 5:37 PM
Updated: July 18, 2013 9:23 PM

By ELLEN YAN
 ellen.yan@newsday.com

Galleries


Emergency personnel at scene of school bus involving
LI car accidents


Kevin Aronowitz, 45, of Deer Park was charged
Vehicles driven into houses and buildings

Web links


traffic map
Traffic map, cameras

Several people were taken to the hospital after a Glen Cove ambulance and a sport utility vehicle crashed in Greenvale Thursday afternoon, authorities said.

The Glen Cove City ambulance was transporting a man who fell from a roof when the vehicle was hit by an SUV leaving a parking lot, said Matthew Venturino, chief of the Glen Cove Emergency Medical Services.

The crash happened about 4:30 p.m. as the ambulance was going south on Glen Cove Road on its way to Winthrop-University Hospital, he said. The SUV came out of a parking lot near Locust Street, he said.


Photos: Recent car accidents on LI
Live: Map of accidents, traffic and LIRR status | Get news alerts


Within minutes, Roslyn firefighters and Nassau police ambulances were on the scene, Venturino said.

The fall victim was quickly transferred to another ambulance, he said: “There was hardly a delay in the care.”

Two EMS workers in the ambulance and the SUV driver were also taken to the hospital for nonlife-threatening injuries, Venturino said. The EMS employees were treated and released, he said.

The SUV driver’s condition was not immediately available.

Westbound lanes on Northern Boulevard were shut down as officers investigated the crash, Nassau police said.

Venturino said drivers should be especially careful during the hot weather because the air conditioning and radio may drown out the sound of emergency sirens.

Cops: 3 hurt in Glen Cove ambulance crash


Originally published: July 18, 2013 5:37 PM
Updated: July 18, 2013 9:23 PM

By ELLEN YAN
 ellen.yan@newsday.com

Galleries


The East Farmingdale Fire Company responds to a
LI car accidents


Kevin Aronowitz, 45, of Deer Park was charged
Vehicles driven into houses and buildings

Web links


traffic map
Traffic map, cameras

Several people were taken to the hospital after a Glen Cove ambulance and a sport utility vehicle crashed in Greenvale Thursday afternoon, authorities said.

The Glen Cove City ambulance was transporting a man who fell from a roof when the vehicle was hit by an SUV leaving a parking lot, said Matthew Venturino, chief of the Glen Cove Emergency Medical Services.

The crash happened about 4:30 p.m. as the ambulance was going south on Glen Cove Road on its way to Winthrop-University Hospital, he said. The SUV came out of a parking lot near Locust Street, he said.


Photos: Recent car accidents on LI
Live: Map of accidents, traffic and LIRR status | Get news alerts


Within minutes, Roslyn firefighters and Nassau police ambulances were on the scene, Venturino said.

The fall victim was quickly transferred to another ambulance, he said: “There was hardly a delay in the care.”

Two EMS workers in the ambulance and the SUV driver were also taken to the hospital for nonlife-threatening injuries, Venturino said. The EMS employees were treated and released, he said.

The SUV driver’s condition was not immediately available.

Westbound lanes on Northern Boulevard were shut down as officers investigated the crash, Nassau police said.

Venturino said drivers should be especially careful during the hot weather because the air conditioning and radio may drown out the sound of emergency sirens.

Car bursts into flames, slams into Glen Head home on Glen Cove Avenue


Published: April 30, 2013 8:05 AM

The incident took place on Glen Cove Avenue just after 1 a.m. (April 30, 2013 7:54 AM)

Galleries

Vehicles driven into houses and buildings

Police say a car burst into flames and slammed into a house in Glen Head early this morning. 

The incident took place on Glen Cove Avenue just after 1 a.m.

Officials say three fire departments responded to the scene.

A woman who was inside the home at the time of the accident tells News 12 she was sleeping in the living room when she smelt smoke and ran outside.

According…

Content Preview This content is exclusive for Optimum, Time Warner®, Comcast®, customers with acccess to News 12.