It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum: This appeal arises in two consolidated actions commenced by plaintiffs to recover for personal injuries sustained in a single-car accident occurring at an intersection on a highway owned by defendant. It is well established that municipalities have a duty to maintain their roads in a reasonably safe condition for motorists and must guard against contemplated and foreseeable risks ( see Friedman v. State of New York, 67 NY2d 271, 283; Tomassi v. Town of Union, 46 NY2d 91, 97; Lopes v. Rostad, 45 NY2d 617, 623). Nevertheless, the duty is "measured by the courts with consideration given to the proper limits on intrusion into the municipality's planning and decision-making functions" ( Friedman, 67 NY2d at 283). Thus, in the field of traffic design engineering, the municipality is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision ( see Friedman, 67 NY2d at 283; Alexander v. Eldred, 63 NY2d 460, 465-466; Weiss v. Fote, 7 NY2d 579, 585-586, rearg denied 8 NY2d 934). Pursuant to that doctrine of qualified immunity, "liability for injury arising out of the operation of a duly executed highway safety plan may only be predicated on proof that the plan either was evolved without adequate study or lacked a reasonable basis" ( Weiss, 7 NY2d at 589; see Friedman, 67 NY2d at 284; Alexander, 63 NY2d at 466).
Applying the foregoing standards, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints. There is a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendant's choice of signage at the intersection and the absence of traffic signals was the product of adequate study and a reasonable planning decision on the part of defendant or was instead negligent ( see Forsythe-Kane v. Town of Yorktown, 249 AD2d 505, 506; Appelbaum v. County of Sullivan, 222 AD2d 987, 989; see also Scheemaker v. State of New York, 70 NY2d 985, 986; cf. Abrahams v. Town of Brookhaven, 220 AD2d 472). Further, there is a triable issue of fact concerning whether such alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and injuries ( see Ernest v. Red Creek Cent. School Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 674-675, rearg denied 93 NY2d 1042; Purves v. County of Erie, 12 AD3d 1112).