Contractor Defense: DOT Approval Did Not Resolve Road-Marking Maintenance Questions

Reviewed September 7, 2026.

Henriquez v. Parsippany Construction Co., Inc., 62 AD3d 749 (2d Dept 2009), illustrates a construction-defense issue: following approved plans does not necessarily resolve whether the contractor properly maintained the work.

The contractor relied on evidence that temporary road markings were installed and removed according to DOT specifications and that DOT had approved the work. But the record also indicated that the contractor supervised its marking subcontractor and was responsible for maintenance. Faded temporary striping and visible old markings raised factual questions about maintenance and causation.

The court therefore affirmed denial of the contractor’s summary-judgment motion. It did not make a final negligence finding. The general rule permitting reliance on plans also has an exception for plans so apparently defective that a reasonably prudent contractor would recognize the danger.

Preserve the defense record

Keep the plans, agency approvals, inspection and maintenance logs, dated photographs, subcontract responsibilities and communications about reported conditions. Promptly notify applicable insurers and preserve relevant evidence after an incident. This discussion concerns contractor defense and risk management; Kushnick Pallaci PLLC does not represent plaintiffs in personal injury matters.

Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with construction litigation and contractor defense. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.

Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.