Amado v. Friedland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amado v. Friedland

251 A.D.2d 57, 674 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6515

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 57 (Amado v. Friedland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amado v. Friedland, 251 A.D.2d 57, 674 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered December 17, 1997, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs alleged injuries resulted from a slip and fall in a pothole on a public sidewalk abutting the Friedland defendants’ property. Defendants’ property manager established that defendants were not responsible for sidewalk maintenance or repair, which was the responsibility of tenants. Since the abutting owner as a matter of law does not owe a general duty to the public to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition (Nuesi v City of New York, 205 AD2d 370), and these defendants did not cause the defect (cf., Granville v City of New York, 211 AD2d 195, 197) nor make special use of the sidewalk (cf., supra), there is no lawful basis to impose liability on them. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered December 17, 1997, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs alleged injuries resulted from a slip and fall in a pothole on a public sidewalk abutting the Friedland defendants’ property. Defendants’ property manager established that defendants were not responsible for sidewalk maintenance or repair, which was the responsibility of tenants. Since the abutting owner as a matter of law does not owe a general duty to the public to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition (Nuesi v City of New York, 205 AD2d 370), and these defendants did not cause the defect (cf., Granville v City of New York, 211 AD2d 195, 197) nor make special use of the sidewalk (cf., supra), there is no lawful basis to impose liability on them. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 57, 674 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amado-v-friedland-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack