Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
----------------····---····· --···--
---------- ---------------·--·--····-----X
SUZANNE SCHULMAN, as Administratrix of the Estate Index No. 611214/15
of BRJTT ANY M. SCHULMAN, Deceased; ALICIA M.
ARUNDEL; OLGA LIPETS; MINDY GRABINA, as AFFIDAVIT
Administratrix of the Estate of AMY GRABINA, and MINDY OF NICHOLAS
GRABINA, Individually; STEVEN BARUCH, as Administrator BELLIZZI, P.E.
of the Estate of LAUREN BARUCH, Deceased, and STEVEN
BARUCH, Individually; JOELLE DIMONTE; MELISSA A.
CR.AI ; and ARTHUR A. BELLI, JR., as Parent and Natural
Guardian of STEPHANIE BELLI, Deceased, and as the
Administrator of the Estate of STEPHANIE BELLI,
Plaintiffs,
-- against --
ULTIMATE CLASS LIMOUSINE, INC., CARLOS PINO,
ROMEO DIMON MARINE SERVICE, INC., STEVEN D.
ROMEO, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK,
CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC., d/b/a ROYALE
LIMOUSINE, and XYZ COMPANIES 1-5, name being
fictitious but intended to be the remanufacturers, distributors
and/or sellers of the 2007 Lincoln Town Car stretch limousine
involved in the collision,
Defendants.
STA TE OF NEW JERSEY )
SS:
COUNTY OF MONMOUTH )
NICHOLAS BELLIZZI, P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says;
l. I am an engineer licensed to practice in the State of New York (License No.
055902) and the State of New Jersey (License No. 30145), with board certification in forensic
engineering (NAFE- 749).
2. I have a Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree from City College of New York
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
(I 972) and a MSTP degree from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (1973), In addition, I
completed all requirements toward a Ph.D. degree in engineering other than my dissertation.
3. I have 50 years of experience in the field of engineering, and particularly in traffic
engineering and accident investigation. From 1972 to 1977, I worked as a civil engineer for the
New York City Transit Authority, and from 1977 to 1979, I was deputy director of the NYCDOT
Bureau of Traffic Operations. Between 1979 and 1984, I was a project manager on a number of
civil engineering projects in New York and elsewhere including highway and roadway
engineering, traffic impact assessments, safety and geometric studies, and highway corridor
improvements. Since 1984. I have provided forensic engineering, civil engineering, highway
engineering and traffic engineering services as an independent consultant.
4. My full qualifications, including education, experience, and professional
affiliations, are set forth in the annexed curriculum vitae.
5. I have been retained on behalf of the plaintiffs in this action as an expert witness
and reconstructionist in the area of Highway Safety Engineering and Traffic Engineering with
respect to the July 18, 2015 stretch limousine accident that is the subject of this case.
6. I make this Affidavit in response to the summary judgment motions of defendants
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.
7. All opinions and conclusions set forth herein are held by me to a reasonable
degree of engineering certainty and are based on my review of the pleadings, depositions and
discovery in this case, witness affidavits, grand jury testimony, traffic studies conducted prior to
the accident, inspection of the accident site, and my education, training, and experience. I certify
that the materials I reviewed are of a kind accepted in the engineering profession as reliable in
forming a professional opinion.
2
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
A. The Accident.
8. The accident that is the subject of this case occurred on July 18, 2015, at
approximately 5: 11 p.m. , at the intersection of Suffolk County Route 48 and Depot Lane in
Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York State. (Police Accident Report at 1),
At that date and time, defendant Carlos Pino, driving a 2007 Lincoln Town Car stretch limousine
owned by defendant Ultimate Class Limousine, was attempting to make a U-tum from the
eastbound to the westbound lanes of County Route 48. (Id.) Defendant Steven D. Romeo,
driving a 2005 Dodge pickup truck westbound on County Route 48, entered the intersection
while Mr. Pino was still attempting to negotiate a U-turn, colliding with the limousine. (Id.)
Four of the eight young women in the limousine were killed and the remaining four sustained
serious injuries. (Id. at 1-2).
9. County Route 48, also known as Middle Road, is an east-west highway with two
lanes of travel in each direction, separated by a median. Ptior to the intersection with Depot
Lane. eastbound Route 48 contains a dedicated left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane in
addition to the two through lanes. The dedicated left-tum lane is separated from the through
lanes by zebra-striped pavement. Westbound Route 48 has a similar configuration for drivers
approaching the intersection from the east. This configuration isdescribed at pages 103-04 of
the Dresch EBT and is confirmed by my personal inspection of the site.
10. The speed limit on Route 48 in both directions is, and was at the time of the
accident, 55 miles per hour. (Dresch EBT: 104). Notably, Route 48 is straight for a considerable
distance on either side of the intersection and has an extended line of sight. These are conditions
that, as has been recognized by the New York Court of Appeals, are conducive to excessive
speed, i.e. ,
"that straight, wide roads with little interference from pedestrians and other
3
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
vehicles ... encourage speeding because drivers feel more comfortable on roadways with those
characteristics." See Turturro v. City of New York, 28 N.Y.3d 469, 476 (2016) (citing testimony
of traffic engineer). My observation of the intersection confirmed that many vehicles passing
east and west were traveling in excess of 55 miles per hour, with some speeding at 65 miles per
hour or more. Likewise, County traffic analysts testifie.dthat, prior to the accident, the 85'"
percentile of speed of vehicles passing through the intersection was 61 to 65 miles per hour,
meaning that "there were quite a few people exceeding the speed limit.'' (Hillman EBT: 87-88).
11 . Depot Lane is a north-south road with one lane of travel in each direction
separated by a double yellow line. At the northerly end of the intersection with Route 48, there
is an additional dedicated lane for vehicles turning right onto Route 48. The curved portion of
this lane is separated from the through lanes of Route 48 by zebra-striped channelized pavement
striping, and the lane then runs parallel to the through lanes, separated from them by a solid
white line, for approximately 100 feet before merging into the right westbound through lane.
12. At the time of the accident, there were no signs regulating turns at the intersection
of Route 48 and Depot Lane, and U-turns, including broken U-turns, were permitted. (Dresch
EBT: 105). There was a flashing red signal facing Depot Lane and a flashing yellow signal
facing Route 48. (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 65; Dresch EBT: 104). The next through road
to intersect Route 48 to the east, Cox Lane, was controlled by a traffic signal which had
exclusive left-turn (green arrow) directional signals, as confirmed by my inspection thereof.
13. The accident happened shortly after the limousine left Vineyard 48. (Pino EBT:
103-05). At the time of the accident, Vineyard 48, which has since closed, was located on the
southerly side of Route 48 a couple of hundred feet west of Depot Lane. (Dresch EBT: 113 ,
177). It was heavily visited in the summer months, meaning that the traffic volume was higher
4
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
in the summer than the winter. (Hillman EBT: 24-25). County personnel, including engineer
Dresch and traffic analyst Hillman, were aware that limousines and buses frequented the
vineyard during the peak summer months. (Hillman EBT: 25, 42; Dresch EBT: 109).
14. Of note, due to the unbroken median separating the eastbound from the
westbound lanes of Route 48, there was no way to turn directly from the entrance of Vineyard 48
onto westbound Route 48 in order to return to the western parts of Long Island. (Pino EBT: 84-
85). Instead, itwas necessary to enter the eastbound lanes of Route 48 and proceed to a place
where it was possible to tum. (Id.) This could be done either by making a U-turn at the Depot
Lane intersection, making a U-turn at another intersection farther east, or else entering Depot
Lane, turning around at one of the nearby industrial areas, and then returning to the intersection
to enter Route 48 westbound.
15 . The stretch limousine involved in the incident is a 120-inch stretch limousine
manufactured by Royale Coach Builders. (Gandolfo Grand Jury Testimony : 25-26). It is
approximately 33 feet long. (Id. at 24). It is very hard for such a vehicle to make an
uninterrupted U-turn from the leftmost lane of travel on eastbound Route 48 into the westbound
lanes. (Id.) Instead, "you have to swing either way to the right, encroaching on the right lane and
making the tum or making that turn and backing up and turning to make a complete turn." (Id. )
In other words, a U-turn on Route 48 by a stretch limousine - or by a similarly long-wheelbase
vehicle such as a bus - most often turns into a "K-turn," also called a three-point turn or broken
U-turn, with the driver having to back up into moving lanes of traffic while still in the
intersection in order to have room to complete the time consuming turning maneuver.
16. My inspection of the subject intersection, and my training, education and
experi ence as a traffic engineer, is in accord with the testimony of Mr. Gandolfo on this issue -
5
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
namely, that a long-wheelbase vehicle such as a stretch limousine or bus would not be able to
complete a U-turn at the subject intersection in a single continuous 180 degree movement. This
is paiticularly true in light of Section 1160(e) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law specifying that "U-
turns shall be made from and to that portion of the highway nearest the marked center line" and
that such turns must be made from a designated left-turn lane if one exists, meaning that such
vehicle would not have the full width of the eastbound lanes available to make the tum. This is
significant in that K-turns take longer to complete than U-tums, meaning that the vehicle is in the
intersection and is exposed to conflicting traffic for a longer period of time. (Hillman EBT: 69;
Ralph EBT: 100-03).
17. It appears from the testimony of limousine driver Pino that he was "attempting the
left turn" in preparation for "start[ingJ the U-turn" at the time of the collision (Pino EBT: 120),
i.e.,that he was making an initialleft turn into the intersection and was going to then back up
into the intersection in order to continue a K-tum when the accident occun-ed. Although
elsewhere in his deposition, in an attempt to minimize his fault, Mr. Pino claimed he did not
intend to make a three-point tum, he could not have completed the U-turn at the subject
intersection any other way, and the aforesaid testimony in which he differentiated the initial "left
tum" from a subsequent "U-turn" that he intended to make, shows that he, in fact, encountered an
obstacle due to the insufficient width of the roadway and that the turn was slowed by inability to
complete the maneuver in one continues movement.
B. Control of Route 48 and Depot Lane.
18. At all relevant times, County Road 48 was owned and maintained by Suffolk
County . Depot Lane was owned and maintained by the Town of Southold. (Dresch Grand Jury
Testimony: 64; Dresch EBT: 102). The County had installed the flashing traffic signal that
6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
existed at the subject intersection at the time of the accident, and the Town was responsible for
maintaining it.(Dresch Grand Jwy Testimony at 65-66). Signs other than stop signs and yield
I
signs were under the jurisdiction of the Town. (Id. at 66).
19. The Town could place a no U-turn sign at the intersection on its own authority via
local law, as it had previously done on nearby Love Lane. (Brashich EBT: 36-39), The Town in
fact discussed this option with Police Chief Flatley. (Brashich EBT: Exhibit Q). However, a
procedure also existed by which, if the County felt that a traffic sign such as a no U-turn sign
was needed, it would make a recommendation to the Town Board, and "99.9 percent of the time,
based on the county's recommendation, the Town Board would pass an amendment to their
traffic code." (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 66). For towns such as Southold which did not
have a "firstclass suburban" designation, the County's involvement would be greater, and in
addition to making the recommendation to the Town Board, the County would actually install
the sign. (Id. at 69-70).
20. In addition, a procedure existed by which, if the Town of Southold received any
complaints regarding Route 48 which required Cotmty action or fell under the County's
jurisdiction, they would forward such complaints to the commissioner's office, the chief
engineer's office, or directly to Mr. Dresch. (Dresch EBT: 117).
B. Complaints About the Subject Intersection.
21. Prior to July 18, 2015, Suffolk County received complaints about the subject
intersection, with the complainants expressing "an interest in changing the operation from the
flasher to a three-color signal." (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 74; Dresch EBT; I 20). These
complaints were received in 2000, 2001 and 2002. (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 74-75). The
7
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
complaints referred to" difficulty crossing County Road 48" as well as speed. (Dresch EBT: 124-
25). It is undisputed that U-turns involve movement across one or more lanes of County Road
48. (Hillman EBT; 56).
22. Complaints specifically involving U-tums were also made. William Shipman, a
resident of Cutchogue, attests that on or about August 12, 20 I 2, he sent an email to the Town of
Southold complaining that a limo that was attempting to make a U-tum at the subject intersection
was "unable to make this tum so he backs up across the east bound traffic lanes blocking both
lanes and stopping traffic in a 55 mph zone (more like 65 mph)." (Shipman Aff., ,r,r1, 8). Mr.
Shipman stated in the email that he had been "complaining about these same problems for 18
months" and that there was a risk of "a limo [being] broadsided by another car." (Id.)
23. Mr. Shipman appeared at the Southold Town Board and complained about U-
turns on approximately 10 occasions before the accident. (Id., , 2). He also appeared before the
Planning Board on a number of occasions to make the same complaint, and talked to Town
Board members including Scott Russell and Albert K.mpski Jr.(Id., ,r,r 3-4).He complained to
the Town police chief as well, (id.,~] 7), which the police chief has confirmed in his deposition in
this case (Flatley EBT at 78-80). Other residents also registered the same complaints. (Shipman
Aff. , ,r 4).
24. One of the Town Board meetings Mr. Shipman attended occurred on October 9,
2012. shortly before Mr. Krupski was elected to the Suffolk County Legislature. (Id., ,r 5). The
minmes of this meeting show then Mr. :Shi pman complained about a bus which anempted to
make a U-turn at the subject intersection and "back[ed] up across 48," almost causing a collision,
and that shortly afterward, there was a motor vehicle accident where a bus was making a U-tum
and "two other cars didn't see each other and smacked into each other." (Id., ,r 5; see also
8
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
transcript of minutes attached to Shipman affidavit). Mr. Krupski stated, "we are taking you
seriously." (Shipman Aff., ,r 6).
25. A review of relevant Southold Town Board minutes shows that Mr. Shipman
and/or his wife registered complaints about party buses and/or stretch limousines making U-turns
at the subject intersection on January 29, 2013, June 3, 2013, June 4, 2013 July 2, 2013, and
October 21, 2014. The June 3, 2013 and October 21, 2014 min1.1tes reflect that Mr. and Mrs.
Shipman specifically complained about vehicles having to make multiple~point tums and back
up across the eastbound lanes of traffic.
26. Notably, Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell attests that "representatives
from the County of Suffolk were present" at some of the Town Board meetings where
complaints about the subject intersection were made. (Russell Interrog. Responses, ,i 7). Mr.
Russell also spoke with a representative of the County in late 2012 or 2013 "regarding the subject
intersection as well as two other intersections along County Route 48 and was advised that the
County was planning on conducting studies of all of the intersections along County Route 48."
(Id.)
27 . It isnotable as well that Mr. Krupski, who was present at these meetings. was a
member of the Public Works, Transportation and Energy Committee of the Suffolk Cow1ty
Legislature following his election to that legislature in January 2013, which is inter alia
responsible for "roadwork in the county." (Krupski EBT: 18-20).
28. Further, Mr. Dresch testified that in 2012 or 2013, the Town of Southold informed
the County there were problems with, inter alia, limousines and buses going "up and down this
area of County Route 48" to access Vineyard 48 . (Dresch EBT: 109). Although those particular
complaints from the Town involved off-street parking (id.),they ce1tainly put the County on
9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
notice that long-wheelbase vehicles such as limousines and buses were frequently using the
subject intersection to access and leave the vineyard.
D. Traffic Studies of the Subject Intersection.
29. According to county engineer Dresch, who was director of traffic engineering and
highway work permits at the time of the accident (Dresch EBT at 16), it was the practice of
Suffolk County to initiate traffic studies when they received complaints from individuals or from
a town. (Id. at 22-25). This included review of all complaints forwarded by the Town of
Southold. (Id. at 117-19).
30. At the initial stage, a traffic engmeer would review the crash history and
conditions of the area and make a determination as to whether the study should go forward. (Id.
at 26). If the study went forward, the main areas of data collection would be traffic counts,
turning movement counts, and crash history. (Id. at 37-38). The purpose of turn movement
analysis was to determine whether turn lanes would be necessary as well as whether traffic
control devices were needed. (Id. at 47-48). Traffic control devices could include signs, such as
a no U-turn sign, in addition to traffic signals. (Id. at 98-99).
31. Mr. Dresch was familiar with speed data collection (id. at 38) and vehicle
classification data collection (id. at 41 ). Classification data collection separated types of vehicles
into "bins'' including, inter alia, buses and long-wheelbase vehicles. (Id. at 42). However,
classification data was "primarily ... used on roads (where] there is a structural deficiency" such
as size or weight limits, and was not used for other purposes. (Id. at 48-49). Width of the road
would not be a factor in determining whether to collect classification data. (Id. at 50). The
County's trafficstudies prior to July 18, 2015 did not include collection of data concerning the
size of vehicles making turns. (Id. at 87-88, 145-46, 149).
10
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
32. A traffic study might also include the length of time it took vehicles to complete
turning movements, for purpose of establishing clearance times at a traffic signal to dete1mine
how long the all-red period of the signal should be. (fd. at 53-55). The County did not collect
this data for any other purpose. (Id. at 56).
33. Significantly, the Com1ty did not differentiate U-turns from left turns when
conducting traffic studies. (Id. at 88). The County also did not differentiate "broken U-turns,"
i.e .. K-turns or three-point turns, instead classifying them as left turns. (Id.)
34. A traffic study concerning Route 48 and Depot Lane was open between 2000 and
2014. (Id. at 13 3 ).This consisted of several specific study periods with traffic data collected in
2000 and 2002 and updated data collected between 2009 and 2012. (Id. at 142). Data analysis
occurred during the 2012-14 time period. (Id. at 144). Size and length of vehicles were not
studied. (Id. at 145-46, 149).
35. Cow1ty traffic technician Patricia Ralph testified that she worked on the 2012-14
study period. (Ralph EBT: 31). Notably, the traffic count was done on a Wednesday in May,
before Memorial Day, rather than a summer weekend like July 18, 2015 when vineyard traffic
would be at its maximum . (Id . at 84~85). Ms. Ralph did personally visit the subject intersection
during the course of the study and saw multiple vehicles making U-turns. (Id. at 98-99). She
could not recall whether or not any of them were limousines, buses or long-wheelbase vehicles.
(ld. at 99). She did not record these U-tums in the study (id. at IO I, I 08-09) and there was no
button on her counter to record U-turns (id. at 118). Nor did she conduct a vehicle classification
count. (Id. at 111 ). She was aware, however, that "ma[de]
.it sense" that limousines and buses
frequented the vineyards. (Id. at l 13 ).
36. As a result of the study, the County decided to installa three-color traffic signal
11
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
for a "five-year projection," largely because the subject intersection was the last intersection on
Route 48 that was controlled by a flashing signal. (Id. at 154-55). The traffic signal was installed
in September 2015, after the accident in this case. (Id. at 156). The traffic signal did not have,
and at the time of my personal inspection still did not have, a lefMurn signal. An exclusive left-
turn signal phase analysis was not done as part of the process of installing this signal, and in fact,
no left-turn phase analysis was done until after the accident. (Id. at 160·61 ). Alternative traffic
controls were not considered. (Id. at 180). The County specifically never considered installing a
no U-turn sign at the subject intersection. (Id. at 215-16; Ralph EBT: 126).
37. Attached to this Affidavit as Exhibits A and B are copies of the traffic studies
testified to by the Suffolk County witnesses. I note that both studies were conducted on
weekdays when visits to the vineyard were less common and U-tums, particularly by limousines
and buses, were therefore less likely. The word "U-turn" in fact never appears, and U-turns are
not counted. I also note that the average speed of vehicles passing through the intersection on
Route 48 was found by both studies to be 61 to 65 miles per hour, above the posted speed limit.
D. Opinions and Conclusions.
38. Based on the foregoing, it is my profossional opinion, with a reasonable degree of
engineering certainty, that both the County of Suffolk and the Town of Southold were negligent
in the maintenance, design, configuration and control of the subject intersection, and that such
negligence was a substantial contributing cause of the accident that is the subject of this action
and the resulting injuries to the plaintiffs herein.
39. The County was on notice, through the attendance of its representatives at
Southold Tovvn Board meetings (as attested by Supervisor Russell) and the specific knowledge
of Legislator Krupski. that complaints had been mack concerning limousines and buses making
12
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
U-turns at the subject intersection, and specifically, that such lengthy vehicles were unable to
complete U-turns in a single movement and were forced to make K-turns, thus blocking the
traffic lanes and exposing themselves to a collision for an extended time. The complaints
specifically included the fact that these vehicles backed up into traffic lanes, that there was a risk
of a driver on Route 48 "broadsiding" a limousine or bus, and that in fact, motor vehicle
accidents had happened as a result of limousines and/or buses making K-tums.
40. The County was thus on notice of the specific problem of the subject intersection
not being able to accommodate long-wheelbase vehicles making U-tums, and was on notice of
the fact that accidents had happened as a result of this problem. Moreover, it was well known to
the County that vehicles exiting Vineyard 48 to return west - which included many limousines
and buses, because Vineyard 48 was a popular (indeed notorious) location for parties - had to
make U-tums on Route 48 because of the lack of an opening in the median, and that the
intersection nearest to the vineyard where such U-turns could be made was the subject
intersection. And it was also known to the County that the speed limit on Route 48 was 55 miles
per hour and that, because the road was straight with little interference from pedestrians, it was
the type of roadway where drivers would feel comfortable going at even faster speeds and often
did so. Indeed the County specifically knew through the above-cited traffic studies that the 85th
percentile of speed of vehicles passing through the intersection on Route 48 was 61 to 65 miles
per hot1r. Thus, the County was on notice that limousines and buses frequently made turning
movements that required them to be in the intersection for an extended period of time in which
they were exposed to speeding opposite-bound traffic.
41. The traffic studies conducted by the County were inadequate in light of the
specific traffic issues and accident history of which it was on notice. To begin with, the traffic
13
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
studies did not distinguish U-turns from left turns, even though the specific risk at this
intersection involved its frequent use by buses and limousines making U-tums, which were
different in character from left turns because such vehicles could not make U•turns in a single
continuous movement. The studies also admittedly did not include data concerning the size of
the vehicles making use of the intersection or the length of time ittook those vehicles to
complete their turning movements. Moreover, no speed data for opposite-bound traffic on Route
48 was collected. Furthermore, the studies were conducted on weekdays, whereas the time of
peak use by limousines, buses and other vehicles accessing and leaving the vineyard was on
weekends, and the studies thus did not capture the high usage by large-wheelbase vehicles which
is the crux of the hazard. The study thus did not include any of the elements necessary to assess
the risk posed to motorists from vehicles making U-turns atthe subject intersection in order to
return west after leaving Vineyard 48.
42. Had a proper traffic study been conducted, the County would have concluded that
it was necessary to install either a no U-turn sign or an exclusive left-tum directional signal at the
subject intersection. Again, it is clear that the risk at this intersection is created by the
combination of (I) long-wheelbase vehicles, such as buses and limousines, making U-tums in
order to return west from Vineyard 48 that the intersection was too narrow to accommodate such
U-turns in a single continuous 180 degree movement, thus forcing them to make K-turns~and (2)
vehicles approaching from the opposite direction at high speeds, posing a risk of broadside
collisions due to the buses and limousines being in the intersection for an extended time. This
was a hazard they were obliged to address because the roadway was not reasonably safe without
it, and they were required to alleviate the hazard in a suitable manner whether or not that manner
appears in a specific published standard or design manual.
14
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
43. I11 this case, either a no U-turn sign or an exclusive left-tum (green arrow)
directional signal would have addressed the hazard that existed at the subject intersection and
that the Town and County were on notice of. A no U-turn sign would have required the buses
and limousines to proceed to Cox A venue to make U-turns, which could have been done safely
due to the presence of a traffic signal with an exclusive left-tum signal phase at the Cox
intersection. An exclusive left-turn directional signal would have ensured that, for the duration
of the turning movement, such vehicles would not face opposite-bound conflicting traffic. In
contrast, the flashing signal that was in effect at the subject intersection at the time of the
accident did not restrict either turning movements or the flow of opposite-bound traffic, and thus,
the intersection of Route 48 and Depot Lane was effectively uncontrolled with respect to U-turns
despite the high risk of collision arising therefrom.
44. It is noted that although a no U-turn sign would have had to be formally approved
by the Town. Mr. Dresch's testimony was that town boards followed the County's
recommendation in this regard "99.9 percent of the time." It thus can be safely concluded that if
the County had conducted a reasonable and adequate traffic study and concluded, as itshould
have, that U-turn movements needed to be controlled, Town approval would essentially have
been a formality; thus, the County cannot disclaim responsibility to act. Moreover, a directional
signal was under the County's jmisdiction and would not have required even nominal approval
from the Town.
45 _ Likewise. the Town - which was on even more overwhelming notice than the
County of the risks posed by buses and limousines making U-tums to return west from Vineyard
48 - was negligent for not placing a no U-tum sign at the subject intersection or, in the
alternative, requesting that the County place a no U-tum sign or directional signal thereat. As
15
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022
Mr. Dresch testified, the Town had authority to control turning movements at the subject
intersection by means of passing a resolution amending its traffic code. The Town also had
authority to place signs other than stop signs and yield signs. Had the Town passed the
necessary resolution, the County would have had no option but to place the no U-tum sign at the
intersection, meaning that the Town shares fault with the County for the failure to install such a
sign. Also, according to Mr. Dresch, it was the County's practice to pay heed to requests for
traffic control from the Town. As a result, even though the Town would not have had
jurisdiction to install a directional signal on its own, it could and should have recommended that
the County do so.
46. Finally the negligent failure to conduct reasonable and adequate studies and
install necessary traffic controls was a substantial contributing cause of the accident even though
limousine driver Pino and pickup truck driver Romeo were also at fault. This is,first of all,
because Mr. Pino testified that it was his practice to obey all traffic signs and signals and that,
had a directional signal or no U-turn sign existed, he wo
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ----------------····---····· --···-- ---------- ---------------·--·--····-----X SUZANNE SCHULMAN, as Administratrix of the Estate Index No. 611214/15 of BRJTT ANY M. SCHULMAN, Deceased; ALICIA M. ARUNDEL; OLGA LIPETS; MINDY GRABINA, as AFFIDAVIT Administratrix of the Estate of AMY GRABINA, and MINDY OF NICHOLAS GRABINA, Individually; STEVEN BARUCH, as Administrator BELLIZZI, P.E. of the Estate of LAUREN BARUCH, Deceased, and STEVEN BARUCH, Individually; JOELLE DIMONTE; MELISSA A. CR.AI ; and ARTHUR A. BELLI, JR., as Parent and Natural Guardian of STEPHANIE BELLI, Deceased, and as the Administrator of the Estate of STEPHANIE BELLI, Plaintiffs, -- against -- ULTIMATE CLASS LIMOUSINE, INC., CARLOS PINO, ROMEO DIMON MARINE SERVICE, INC., STEVEN D. ROMEO, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC., d/b/a ROYALE LIMOUSINE, and XYZ COMPANIES 1-5, name being fictitious but intended to be the remanufacturers, distributors and/or sellers of the 2007 Lincoln Town Car stretch limousine involved in the collision, Defendants. STA TE OF NEW JERSEY ) SS: COUNTY OF MONMOUTH ) NICHOLAS BELLIZZI, P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says; l. I am an engineer licensed to practice in the State of New York (License No. 055902) and the State of New Jersey (License No. 30145), with board certification in forensic engineering (NAFE- 749). 2. I have a Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree from City College of New York FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 (I 972) and a MSTP degree from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (1973), In addition, I completed all requirements toward a Ph.D. degree in engineering other than my dissertation. 3. I have 50 years of experience in the field of engineering, and particularly in traffic engineering and accident investigation. From 1972 to 1977, I worked as a civil engineer for the New York City Transit Authority, and from 1977 to 1979, I was deputy director of the NYCDOT Bureau of Traffic Operations. Between 1979 and 1984, I was a project manager on a number of civil engineering projects in New York and elsewhere including highway and roadway engineering, traffic impact assessments, safety and geometric studies, and highway corridor improvements. Since 1984. I have provided forensic engineering, civil engineering, highway engineering and traffic engineering services as an independent consultant. 4. My full qualifications, including education, experience, and professional affiliations, are set forth in the annexed curriculum vitae. 5. I have been retained on behalf of the plaintiffs in this action as an expert witness and reconstructionist in the area of Highway Safety Engineering and Traffic Engineering with respect to the July 18, 2015 stretch limousine accident that is the subject of this case. 6. I make this Affidavit in response to the summary judgment motions of defendants COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. 7. All opinions and conclusions set forth herein are held by me to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty and are based on my review of the pleadings, depositions and discovery in this case, witness affidavits, grand jury testimony, traffic studies conducted prior to the accident, inspection of the accident site, and my education, training, and experience. I certify that the materials I reviewed are of a kind accepted in the engineering profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion. 2 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 A. The Accident. 8. The accident that is the subject of this case occurred on July 18, 2015, at approximately 5: 11 p.m. , at the intersection of Suffolk County Route 48 and Depot Lane in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York State. (Police Accident Report at 1), At that date and time, defendant Carlos Pino, driving a 2007 Lincoln Town Car stretch limousine owned by defendant Ultimate Class Limousine, was attempting to make a U-tum from the eastbound to the westbound lanes of County Route 48. (Id.) Defendant Steven D. Romeo, driving a 2005 Dodge pickup truck westbound on County Route 48, entered the intersection while Mr. Pino was still attempting to negotiate a U-turn, colliding with the limousine. (Id.) Four of the eight young women in the limousine were killed and the remaining four sustained serious injuries. (Id. at 1-2). 9. County Route 48, also known as Middle Road, is an east-west highway with two lanes of travel in each direction, separated by a median. Ptior to the intersection with Depot Lane. eastbound Route 48 contains a dedicated left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane in addition to the two through lanes. The dedicated left-tum lane is separated from the through lanes by zebra-striped pavement. Westbound Route 48 has a similar configuration for drivers approaching the intersection from the east. This configuration isdescribed at pages 103-04 of the Dresch EBT and is confirmed by my personal inspection of the site. 10. The speed limit on Route 48 in both directions is, and was at the time of the accident, 55 miles per hour. (Dresch EBT: 104). Notably, Route 48 is straight for a considerable distance on either side of the intersection and has an extended line of sight. These are conditions that, as has been recognized by the New York Court of Appeals, are conducive to excessive speed, i.e. , "that straight, wide roads with little interference from pedestrians and other 3 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 vehicles ... encourage speeding because drivers feel more comfortable on roadways with those characteristics." See Turturro v. City of New York, 28 N.Y.3d 469, 476 (2016) (citing testimony of traffic engineer). My observation of the intersection confirmed that many vehicles passing east and west were traveling in excess of 55 miles per hour, with some speeding at 65 miles per hour or more. Likewise, County traffic analysts testifie.dthat, prior to the accident, the 85'" percentile of speed of vehicles passing through the intersection was 61 to 65 miles per hour, meaning that "there were quite a few people exceeding the speed limit.'' (Hillman EBT: 87-88). 11 . Depot Lane is a north-south road with one lane of travel in each direction separated by a double yellow line. At the northerly end of the intersection with Route 48, there is an additional dedicated lane for vehicles turning right onto Route 48. The curved portion of this lane is separated from the through lanes of Route 48 by zebra-striped channelized pavement striping, and the lane then runs parallel to the through lanes, separated from them by a solid white line, for approximately 100 feet before merging into the right westbound through lane. 12. At the time of the accident, there were no signs regulating turns at the intersection of Route 48 and Depot Lane, and U-turns, including broken U-turns, were permitted. (Dresch EBT: 105). There was a flashing red signal facing Depot Lane and a flashing yellow signal facing Route 48. (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 65; Dresch EBT: 104). The next through road to intersect Route 48 to the east, Cox Lane, was controlled by a traffic signal which had exclusive left-turn (green arrow) directional signals, as confirmed by my inspection thereof. 13. The accident happened shortly after the limousine left Vineyard 48. (Pino EBT: 103-05). At the time of the accident, Vineyard 48, which has since closed, was located on the southerly side of Route 48 a couple of hundred feet west of Depot Lane. (Dresch EBT: 113 , 177). It was heavily visited in the summer months, meaning that the traffic volume was higher 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 in the summer than the winter. (Hillman EBT: 24-25). County personnel, including engineer Dresch and traffic analyst Hillman, were aware that limousines and buses frequented the vineyard during the peak summer months. (Hillman EBT: 25, 42; Dresch EBT: 109). 14. Of note, due to the unbroken median separating the eastbound from the westbound lanes of Route 48, there was no way to turn directly from the entrance of Vineyard 48 onto westbound Route 48 in order to return to the western parts of Long Island. (Pino EBT: 84- 85). Instead, itwas necessary to enter the eastbound lanes of Route 48 and proceed to a place where it was possible to tum. (Id.) This could be done either by making a U-turn at the Depot Lane intersection, making a U-turn at another intersection farther east, or else entering Depot Lane, turning around at one of the nearby industrial areas, and then returning to the intersection to enter Route 48 westbound. 15 . The stretch limousine involved in the incident is a 120-inch stretch limousine manufactured by Royale Coach Builders. (Gandolfo Grand Jury Testimony : 25-26). It is approximately 33 feet long. (Id. at 24). It is very hard for such a vehicle to make an uninterrupted U-turn from the leftmost lane of travel on eastbound Route 48 into the westbound lanes. (Id.) Instead, "you have to swing either way to the right, encroaching on the right lane and making the tum or making that turn and backing up and turning to make a complete turn." (Id. ) In other words, a U-turn on Route 48 by a stretch limousine - or by a similarly long-wheelbase vehicle such as a bus - most often turns into a "K-turn," also called a three-point turn or broken U-turn, with the driver having to back up into moving lanes of traffic while still in the intersection in order to have room to complete the time consuming turning maneuver. 16. My inspection of the subject intersection, and my training, education and experi ence as a traffic engineer, is in accord with the testimony of Mr. Gandolfo on this issue - 5 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 namely, that a long-wheelbase vehicle such as a stretch limousine or bus would not be able to complete a U-turn at the subject intersection in a single continuous 180 degree movement. This is paiticularly true in light of Section 1160(e) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law specifying that "U- turns shall be made from and to that portion of the highway nearest the marked center line" and that such turns must be made from a designated left-turn lane if one exists, meaning that such vehicle would not have the full width of the eastbound lanes available to make the tum. This is significant in that K-turns take longer to complete than U-tums, meaning that the vehicle is in the intersection and is exposed to conflicting traffic for a longer period of time. (Hillman EBT: 69; Ralph EBT: 100-03). 17. It appears from the testimony of limousine driver Pino that he was "attempting the left turn" in preparation for "start[ingJ the U-turn" at the time of the collision (Pino EBT: 120), i.e.,that he was making an initialleft turn into the intersection and was going to then back up into the intersection in order to continue a K-tum when the accident occun-ed. Although elsewhere in his deposition, in an attempt to minimize his fault, Mr. Pino claimed he did not intend to make a three-point tum, he could not have completed the U-turn at the subject intersection any other way, and the aforesaid testimony in which he differentiated the initial "left tum" from a subsequent "U-turn" that he intended to make, shows that he, in fact, encountered an obstacle due to the insufficient width of the roadway and that the turn was slowed by inability to complete the maneuver in one continues movement. B. Control of Route 48 and Depot Lane. 18. At all relevant times, County Road 48 was owned and maintained by Suffolk County . Depot Lane was owned and maintained by the Town of Southold. (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 64; Dresch EBT: 102). The County had installed the flashing traffic signal that 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 existed at the subject intersection at the time of the accident, and the Town was responsible for maintaining it.(Dresch Grand Jwy Testimony at 65-66). Signs other than stop signs and yield I signs were under the jurisdiction of the Town. (Id. at 66). 19. The Town could place a no U-turn sign at the intersection on its own authority via local law, as it had previously done on nearby Love Lane. (Brashich EBT: 36-39), The Town in fact discussed this option with Police Chief Flatley. (Brashich EBT: Exhibit Q). However, a procedure also existed by which, if the County felt that a traffic sign such as a no U-turn sign was needed, it would make a recommendation to the Town Board, and "99.9 percent of the time, based on the county's recommendation, the Town Board would pass an amendment to their traffic code." (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 66). For towns such as Southold which did not have a "firstclass suburban" designation, the County's involvement would be greater, and in addition to making the recommendation to the Town Board, the County would actually install the sign. (Id. at 69-70). 20. In addition, a procedure existed by which, if the Town of Southold received any complaints regarding Route 48 which required Cotmty action or fell under the County's jurisdiction, they would forward such complaints to the commissioner's office, the chief engineer's office, or directly to Mr. Dresch. (Dresch EBT: 117). B. Complaints About the Subject Intersection. 21. Prior to July 18, 2015, Suffolk County received complaints about the subject intersection, with the complainants expressing "an interest in changing the operation from the flasher to a three-color signal." (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 74; Dresch EBT; I 20). These complaints were received in 2000, 2001 and 2002. (Dresch Grand Jury Testimony: 74-75). The 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 complaints referred to" difficulty crossing County Road 48" as well as speed. (Dresch EBT: 124- 25). It is undisputed that U-turns involve movement across one or more lanes of County Road 48. (Hillman EBT; 56). 22. Complaints specifically involving U-tums were also made. William Shipman, a resident of Cutchogue, attests that on or about August 12, 20 I 2, he sent an email to the Town of Southold complaining that a limo that was attempting to make a U-tum at the subject intersection was "unable to make this tum so he backs up across the east bound traffic lanes blocking both lanes and stopping traffic in a 55 mph zone (more like 65 mph)." (Shipman Aff., ,r,r1, 8). Mr. Shipman stated in the email that he had been "complaining about these same problems for 18 months" and that there was a risk of "a limo [being] broadsided by another car." (Id.) 23. Mr. Shipman appeared at the Southold Town Board and complained about U- turns on approximately 10 occasions before the accident. (Id., , 2). He also appeared before the Planning Board on a number of occasions to make the same complaint, and talked to Town Board members including Scott Russell and Albert K.mpski Jr.(Id., ,r,r 3-4).He complained to the Town police chief as well, (id.,~] 7), which the police chief has confirmed in his deposition in this case (Flatley EBT at 78-80). Other residents also registered the same complaints. (Shipman Aff. , ,r 4). 24. One of the Town Board meetings Mr. Shipman attended occurred on October 9, 2012. shortly before Mr. Krupski was elected to the Suffolk County Legislature. (Id., ,r 5). The minmes of this meeting show then Mr. :Shi pman complained about a bus which anempted to make a U-turn at the subject intersection and "back[ed] up across 48," almost causing a collision, and that shortly afterward, there was a motor vehicle accident where a bus was making a U-tum and "two other cars didn't see each other and smacked into each other." (Id., ,r 5; see also 8 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 transcript of minutes attached to Shipman affidavit). Mr. Krupski stated, "we are taking you seriously." (Shipman Aff., ,r 6). 25. A review of relevant Southold Town Board minutes shows that Mr. Shipman and/or his wife registered complaints about party buses and/or stretch limousines making U-turns at the subject intersection on January 29, 2013, June 3, 2013, June 4, 2013 July 2, 2013, and October 21, 2014. The June 3, 2013 and October 21, 2014 min1.1tes reflect that Mr. and Mrs. Shipman specifically complained about vehicles having to make multiple~point tums and back up across the eastbound lanes of traffic. 26. Notably, Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell attests that "representatives from the County of Suffolk were present" at some of the Town Board meetings where complaints about the subject intersection were made. (Russell Interrog. Responses, ,i 7). Mr. Russell also spoke with a representative of the County in late 2012 or 2013 "regarding the subject intersection as well as two other intersections along County Route 48 and was advised that the County was planning on conducting studies of all of the intersections along County Route 48." (Id.) 27 . It isnotable as well that Mr. Krupski, who was present at these meetings. was a member of the Public Works, Transportation and Energy Committee of the Suffolk Cow1ty Legislature following his election to that legislature in January 2013, which is inter alia responsible for "roadwork in the county." (Krupski EBT: 18-20). 28. Further, Mr. Dresch testified that in 2012 or 2013, the Town of Southold informed the County there were problems with, inter alia, limousines and buses going "up and down this area of County Route 48" to access Vineyard 48 . (Dresch EBT: 109). Although those particular complaints from the Town involved off-street parking (id.),they ce1tainly put the County on 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 notice that long-wheelbase vehicles such as limousines and buses were frequently using the subject intersection to access and leave the vineyard. D. Traffic Studies of the Subject Intersection. 29. According to county engineer Dresch, who was director of traffic engineering and highway work permits at the time of the accident (Dresch EBT at 16), it was the practice of Suffolk County to initiate traffic studies when they received complaints from individuals or from a town. (Id. at 22-25). This included review of all complaints forwarded by the Town of Southold. (Id. at 117-19). 30. At the initial stage, a traffic engmeer would review the crash history and conditions of the area and make a determination as to whether the study should go forward. (Id. at 26). If the study went forward, the main areas of data collection would be traffic counts, turning movement counts, and crash history. (Id. at 37-38). The purpose of turn movement analysis was to determine whether turn lanes would be necessary as well as whether traffic control devices were needed. (Id. at 47-48). Traffic control devices could include signs, such as a no U-turn sign, in addition to traffic signals. (Id. at 98-99). 31. Mr. Dresch was familiar with speed data collection (id. at 38) and vehicle classification data collection (id. at 41 ). Classification data collection separated types of vehicles into "bins'' including, inter alia, buses and long-wheelbase vehicles. (Id. at 42). However, classification data was "primarily ... used on roads (where] there is a structural deficiency" such as size or weight limits, and was not used for other purposes. (Id. at 48-49). Width of the road would not be a factor in determining whether to collect classification data. (Id. at 50). The County's trafficstudies prior to July 18, 2015 did not include collection of data concerning the size of vehicles making turns. (Id. at 87-88, 145-46, 149). 10 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 32. A traffic study might also include the length of time it took vehicles to complete turning movements, for purpose of establishing clearance times at a traffic signal to dete1mine how long the all-red period of the signal should be. (fd. at 53-55). The County did not collect this data for any other purpose. (Id. at 56). 33. Significantly, the Com1ty did not differentiate U-turns from left turns when conducting traffic studies. (Id. at 88). The County also did not differentiate "broken U-turns," i.e .. K-turns or three-point turns, instead classifying them as left turns. (Id.) 34. A traffic study concerning Route 48 and Depot Lane was open between 2000 and 2014. (Id. at 13 3 ).This consisted of several specific study periods with traffic data collected in 2000 and 2002 and updated data collected between 2009 and 2012. (Id. at 142). Data analysis occurred during the 2012-14 time period. (Id. at 144). Size and length of vehicles were not studied. (Id. at 145-46, 149). 35. Cow1ty traffic technician Patricia Ralph testified that she worked on the 2012-14 study period. (Ralph EBT: 31). Notably, the traffic count was done on a Wednesday in May, before Memorial Day, rather than a summer weekend like July 18, 2015 when vineyard traffic would be at its maximum . (Id . at 84~85). Ms. Ralph did personally visit the subject intersection during the course of the study and saw multiple vehicles making U-turns. (Id. at 98-99). She could not recall whether or not any of them were limousines, buses or long-wheelbase vehicles. (ld. at 99). She did not record these U-tums in the study (id. at IO I, I 08-09) and there was no button on her counter to record U-turns (id. at 118). Nor did she conduct a vehicle classification count. (Id. at 111 ). She was aware, however, that "ma[de] .it sense" that limousines and buses frequented the vineyards. (Id. at l 13 ). 36. As a result of the study, the County decided to installa three-color traffic signal 11 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 for a "five-year projection," largely because the subject intersection was the last intersection on Route 48 that was controlled by a flashing signal. (Id. at 154-55). The traffic signal was installed in September 2015, after the accident in this case. (Id. at 156). The traffic signal did not have, and at the time of my personal inspection still did not have, a lefMurn signal. An exclusive left- turn signal phase analysis was not done as part of the process of installing this signal, and in fact, no left-turn phase analysis was done until after the accident. (Id. at 160·61 ). Alternative traffic controls were not considered. (Id. at 180). The County specifically never considered installing a no U-turn sign at the subject intersection. (Id. at 215-16; Ralph EBT: 126). 37. Attached to this Affidavit as Exhibits A and B are copies of the traffic studies testified to by the Suffolk County witnesses. I note that both studies were conducted on weekdays when visits to the vineyard were less common and U-tums, particularly by limousines and buses, were therefore less likely. The word "U-turn" in fact never appears, and U-turns are not counted. I also note that the average speed of vehicles passing through the intersection on Route 48 was found by both studies to be 61 to 65 miles per hour, above the posted speed limit. D. Opinions and Conclusions. 38. Based on the foregoing, it is my profossional opinion, with a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that both the County of Suffolk and the Town of Southold were negligent in the maintenance, design, configuration and control of the subject intersection, and that such negligence was a substantial contributing cause of the accident that is the subject of this action and the resulting injuries to the plaintiffs herein. 39. The County was on notice, through the attendance of its representatives at Southold Tovvn Board meetings (as attested by Supervisor Russell) and the specific knowledge of Legislator Krupski. that complaints had been mack concerning limousines and buses making 12 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 U-turns at the subject intersection, and specifically, that such lengthy vehicles were unable to complete U-turns in a single movement and were forced to make K-turns, thus blocking the traffic lanes and exposing themselves to a collision for an extended time. The complaints specifically included the fact that these vehicles backed up into traffic lanes, that there was a risk of a driver on Route 48 "broadsiding" a limousine or bus, and that in fact, motor vehicle accidents had happened as a result of limousines and/or buses making K-tums. 40. The County was thus on notice of the specific problem of the subject intersection not being able to accommodate long-wheelbase vehicles making U-tums, and was on notice of the fact that accidents had happened as a result of this problem. Moreover, it was well known to the County that vehicles exiting Vineyard 48 to return west - which included many limousines and buses, because Vineyard 48 was a popular (indeed notorious) location for parties - had to make U-tums on Route 48 because of the lack of an opening in the median, and that the intersection nearest to the vineyard where such U-turns could be made was the subject intersection. And it was also known to the County that the speed limit on Route 48 was 55 miles per hour and that, because the road was straight with little interference from pedestrians, it was the type of roadway where drivers would feel comfortable going at even faster speeds and often did so. Indeed the County specifically knew through the above-cited traffic studies that the 85th percentile of speed of vehicles passing through the intersection on Route 48 was 61 to 65 miles per hot1r. Thus, the County was on notice that limousines and buses frequently made turning movements that required them to be in the intersection for an extended period of time in which they were exposed to speeding opposite-bound traffic. 41. The traffic studies conducted by the County were inadequate in light of the specific traffic issues and accident history of which it was on notice. To begin with, the traffic 13 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 studies did not distinguish U-turns from left turns, even though the specific risk at this intersection involved its frequent use by buses and limousines making U-tums, which were different in character from left turns because such vehicles could not make U•turns in a single continuous movement. The studies also admittedly did not include data concerning the size of the vehicles making use of the intersection or the length of time ittook those vehicles to complete their turning movements. Moreover, no speed data for opposite-bound traffic on Route 48 was collected. Furthermore, the studies were conducted on weekdays, whereas the time of peak use by limousines, buses and other vehicles accessing and leaving the vineyard was on weekends, and the studies thus did not capture the high usage by large-wheelbase vehicles which is the crux of the hazard. The study thus did not include any of the elements necessary to assess the risk posed to motorists from vehicles making U-turns atthe subject intersection in order to return west after leaving Vineyard 48. 42. Had a proper traffic study been conducted, the County would have concluded that it was necessary to install either a no U-turn sign or an exclusive left-tum directional signal at the subject intersection. Again, it is clear that the risk at this intersection is created by the combination of (I) long-wheelbase vehicles, such as buses and limousines, making U-tums in order to return west from Vineyard 48 that the intersection was too narrow to accommodate such U-turns in a single continuous 180 degree movement, thus forcing them to make K-turns~and (2) vehicles approaching from the opposite direction at high speeds, posing a risk of broadside collisions due to the buses and limousines being in the intersection for an extended time. This was a hazard they were obliged to address because the roadway was not reasonably safe without it, and they were required to alleviate the hazard in a suitable manner whether or not that manner appears in a specific published standard or design manual. 14 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 43. I11 this case, either a no U-turn sign or an exclusive left-tum (green arrow) directional signal would have addressed the hazard that existed at the subject intersection and that the Town and County were on notice of. A no U-turn sign would have required the buses and limousines to proceed to Cox A venue to make U-turns, which could have been done safely due to the presence of a traffic signal with an exclusive left-tum signal phase at the Cox intersection. An exclusive left-turn directional signal would have ensured that, for the duration of the turning movement, such vehicles would not face opposite-bound conflicting traffic. In contrast, the flashing signal that was in effect at the subject intersection at the time of the accident did not restrict either turning movements or the flow of opposite-bound traffic, and thus, the intersection of Route 48 and Depot Lane was effectively uncontrolled with respect to U-turns despite the high risk of collision arising therefrom. 44. It is noted that although a no U-turn sign would have had to be formally approved by the Town. Mr. Dresch's testimony was that town boards followed the County's recommendation in this regard "99.9 percent of the time." It thus can be safely concluded that if the County had conducted a reasonable and adequate traffic study and concluded, as itshould have, that U-turn movements needed to be controlled, Town approval would essentially have been a formality; thus, the County cannot disclaim responsibility to act. Moreover, a directional signal was under the County's jmisdiction and would not have required even nominal approval from the Town. 45 _ Likewise. the Town - which was on even more overwhelming notice than the County of the risks posed by buses and limousines making U-tums to return west from Vineyard 48 - was negligent for not placing a no U-tum sign at the subject intersection or, in the alternative, requesting that the County place a no U-tum sign or directional signal thereat. As 15 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2022 09:51 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1091 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2022 Mr. Dresch testified, the Town had authority to control turning movements at the subject intersection by means of passing a resolution amending its traffic code. The Town also had authority to place signs other than stop signs and yield signs. Had the Town passed the necessary resolution, the County would have had no option but to place the no U-tum sign at the intersection, meaning that the Town shares fault with the County for the failure to install such a sign. Also, according to Mr. Dresch, it was the County's practice to pay heed to requests for traffic control from the Town. As a result, even though the Town would not have had jurisdiction to install a directional signal on its own, it could and should have recommended that the County do so. 46. Finally the negligent failure to conduct reasonable and adequate studies and install necessary traffic controls was a substantial contributing cause of the accident even though limousine driver Pino and pickup truck driver Romeo were also at fault. This is,first of all, because Mr. Pino testified that it was his practice to obey all traffic signs and signals and that, had a directional signal or no U-turn sign existed, he wo