Macey v. Truman, 519 N.E.2d 304 (N.Y. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Macey v. Truman, 519 N.E.2d 304 (N.Y. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2012–2018 · …a landowner owes a duty to another on his or her land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person's presence and the likelihood of injury at p. 919 ✓
64 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Yahya v. United States (nywd, 2024-11-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yahya v. United States
W.D.N.Y. · 2024 · confidence medium
Holdings, 59 N.E.3d 485, 490 (N.Y. 2016) (citation omitted). ‘““A landowner owes a duty to another on his land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person's presence and the likelihood of injury.” Macey v. Truman, 519 N.E.2d 304, 305 (N.Y. 1987), amended, 524 N.E.2d 147 (N.Y. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stamatatos v. Stamatatos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A landowner owes a duty to another on his [or her] land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person’s presence and the likelihood of injury” (Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 [1987]; see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stamatatos v. Stamatatos
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A landowner owes a duty to another on his [or her] land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person’s presence and the likelihood of injury” (Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 [1987]; see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marino v. Bingler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Where an injury results “not from any unsafe condition defendant left uncorrected on his [or her] land, but as a direct result of the course plaintiff and his companions decided to pursue . . . the law impose[s] no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his [or her] own actions” (Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baggott v. Corcoran
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Because the accident was the direct result of plaintiffs voluntary activities on the property, defendant may not be held liable as a landowner for plaintiffs injuries (see Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 [1987], mot to amend remittitur granted 71 NY2d 949 [1988]; Prairie v Sacandaga Bible Conference Camp, 252 AD2d 940, 941 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 816 [1998]; Jarvis v Eastman, 202 AD2d 826, 827 [1994]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Captanian v. Schramm
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
“Under these circumstances, the law imposed no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his own actions” (Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blais v. Balzer
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · confidence medium
Significantly, plaintiffs injuries were not caused by any unsafe condition defendant left uncorrected upon her land, but were the direct result of the attempt by plaintiff’s husband and her son to cut and remove the branch (see, Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lichtenthal v. St. Mary's Church
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · confidence medium
The mere fact that Pastor Bohn "may have” suggested that the limb be secured with a rope before it was removed cannot form a sufficient causal nexus to support a cause of action because the majority holds that the other defendants were not negligent as a matter of law in so securing the limb (see, Macey v Truman, supra, at 920).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brooklyn Law School v. Raybon, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1989 · confidence medium
While it is true that the law school’s duty does not derive from the foregoing sources, as the owner of the building, it has the common-law duty to all those who enter, whether they be students, employees or visitors, to exercise "reasonable care under the circumstances whereby foreseeability shall be a measure of liability.” (Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; see also, Block, Landlords Risk Asbestos Suits, NYLJ, June 15, 1988, at 11, col 3; Sitomer and Goldberg, Trends in Asbestos Litigation; Recovering the Cost of Abatement, NYLJ, Nov. 28, 1988, at 1, col 1.) This standard, couple…
discussed Cited "see" Sciandra v. Patchogue Fire Dept., Inc. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
Where an injury "w[as] not caused by an unsafe condition on the [*2]property, but w[as] rather a direct result of the voluntary actions that the plaintiff undertook," the property owner has no duty to protect the plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of the plaintiff's own actions ( Poole v Ogiejko , 62 AD3d 977, 977 ; see Macey v Truman , 70 NY2d 918, 919-920 ).
discussed Cited "see" Fernandez v. Castillo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
The defendant's evidentiary submissions in support of his motion, including his own deposition testimony, revealed triable issues of fact as to the degree of his active participation in the planning and performance of the tree-cutting activity and whether his actions were causally related to the plaintiff's injuries ( see Newman v RPCI Landmark Props, LLC , 28 NY3d 1032, 1034 ; Garvin v Wojcik , 138 AD3d at 1489 ; see generally Macey v Truman , 70 NY2d at 919 ).
discussed Cited "see" GARVIN, DONALD J. v. WOJCIK, JR., EDWARD C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, plaintiff was not injured owing to an unsafe condition on the property, but rather he was injured as “the direct result of the manner in which [he] engaged in a voluntary activity” on the property (Jarvis v Eastman, 202 AD2d 826, 827 [1994]; see Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 , mot to amend remittitur granted 71 NY2d 949 [1987]).
discussed Cited "see" Sorce v. Great Oak Marina
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
The tree branches overhanging the plaintiff’s boat did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition on the property (see, Plessias v John Vincent Scalia Home for Funerals, 271 AD2d 423 ; Pepic v Joco Realty, 216 AD2d 95 ; Pilato v Diamond, 209 AD2d 393 ; see generally, Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918 , amended 71 NY2d 949 ; Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 ).
discussed Cited "see" Slater v. Hitchcock (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
Since we will not find a “duty to warn against a condition that is readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses * * * considering plaintiff’s knowledge and experience” (Jarvis v Eastman, supra, at 828 [citation omitted]; see, Prairie v Sacandaga Bible Conference Camp, 252 AD2d 940, 941-942 , supra), we conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s daily work with the Town of Johnsburg Highway Department precludes an imposition of liability upon defendants for failing “to protect [him] from the unfortunate consequences of his own actions” (Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918,…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Atanasoff v. Elmont Union Free School District
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
By his own testimony, the plaintiff was aware of the condition of the gate because he visited and climbed through the gated area many times before (see Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh, 3 AD3d 473 [2004]; see also Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918 [1987]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Barnes v. Sanders
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
We conclude that no such duty was undertaken or breached (see, Matter of Franze v County of Chautauqua, 191 AD2d 1014, 1014-1015 , affd 82 NY2d 688 ; see also, Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 , mot to amend remittitur granted 71 NY2d 949 ; Christmann v Murphy, 226 AD2d 1069, 1070 , lv denied 89 NY2d 801 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Farley v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
As a landowner, Smith owed a duty of care to those entering upon his property to keep it in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 ; see also, Macey v Truman, 70 NY2d 918, 919 ; Akins v Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 NY2d 325, 329 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gregg Macey
v.
Charles Truman
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 23, 1987.
519 N.E.2d 304
1987 N.Y. LEXIS 19955
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Donald G. Sweeney and Carl A. Kieper for appellant., Kevin F. McDonough for respondents.
Cited by 45 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Defendant permitted plaintiff, Greg Macey, and two others entry onto his land to cut certain trees which had been marked for removal for plaintiff’s use in building a log cabin. The accident out of which this action arose occurred when a marked tree felled by Macey and his companions became entangled in a standing tree that was unmarked. After unsuccessful efforts to dislodge the marked tree, they decided to take down the unmarked one on which it was resting. When they cut the tree it struck plaintiff as it fell and caused serious injuries. Defendant was not present at the time; his sole involvement was in designating the particular area of his land for tree-cutting and, together with plaintiff and a forester from the Department of Environmental Conservation, in marking the trees for cutting by plaintiff.

A landowner owes a duty to another on his land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition, considering all of the circumstances including the purpose of the person’s presence and the likelihood of injury (see, Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233). Here, the injury resulted not from any unsafe condition defendant left uncorrected on his land, but as a direct result of the course plaintiff and his companions decided to pursue in attempting to dislodge the marked tree. Under these circumstances, the law imposed no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his own actions. Nor, in the absence of some showing that defendant’s conduct in designating an area of his land for cutting and in marking the trees was causally related to the accident, can he be held liable to plaintiff on the theory that his[*920] conduct was negligent. We agree with the dissenters at the Appellate Division (126 AD2d 864, 866) that Schoonmaker v Ridge Runners Club 99 (119 AD2d 858, appeal dismissed 68 NY2d 807) is distinguishable. In Schoonmaker the individually-named defendants, unlike defendant here, participated with plaintiff in the tree-cutting activities which led to the accident. Hence, plaintiff in that case could show a causal nexus between his injuries and defendants’ actions.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order reversed, with costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted and complaint dismissed in a memorandum. Certified question answered in the affirmative.