Gary v. 101 Owners Corp.

89 A.D.3d 627, 934 N.Y.2d 13
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 627 (Gary v. 101 Owners Corp.) 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
Gary v. 101 Owners Corp., 89 A.D.3d 627, 934 N.Y.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

In February 2008, plaintiff tripped and fell while walking from the street onto the sidewalk at the corner of Stanton and Ludlow Streets in New York City. Using plaintiffs testimony and photographs, defendant established that it was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff did not trip on the sidewalk flag abutting defendant’s property; instead, plaintiff stumbled on either a crack running through the adjacent pedestrian ramp, or against the edge of the sidewalk flag, which had been exposed when the bordering edge of the ramp sagged below the flag, possibly after the ramp cracked.

While New York City landowners are responsible for maintaining sidewalk flags that abut their property (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210; see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517, 519-520 [2008]), a landowner is not liable for a defect in a pedestrian ramp leading from the street onto a sidewalk unless the landowner created the defect or the ramp was constructed for its special use (see Ortiz v City of New York, 67 AD3d 21, 27-28 [2009], revd on other grounds 14 NY3d 779 [2010] ; Vidakovic v City of New York, 84 AD3d 1357, 1358 [2011] ).

[628]*628The defective ramp and not a defect in the flag caused plaintiffs injury. Plaintiff does not claim that defendant’s activity created the defect in the ramp or that it was constructed for defendant’s special use. Thus, summary judgment should have been granted to defendant. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Rakin v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 30196(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Piotrowski v. Town of Cheektowaga
2024 NY Slip Op 05707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Rodney v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 30546(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Blackwell v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 30012 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Harvey v. Henry 85 LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 7210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Shatsky v. Highpoint Assoc. V, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 1825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Delgado v. 5008 Broadway Associates, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 3055 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Puello v. Georges Units, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Lebron v. City of New York
2016 NY Slip Op 7857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Martin v. Rizzatti
142 A.D.3d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Ortiz v. City of New York
103 A.D.3d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Rodriguez v. Themelion Realty Corp.
94 A.D.3d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 627, 934 N.Y.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-v-101-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2011.