Gomez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. City of New York

238 A.D.2d 472, 657 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4028

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

DecidedApril 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 472 (Gomez v. City of New York) 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

Gomez v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 472, 657 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 2, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendants James Couchells and Christina Couchells for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an abutting landowner is not responsible for damage caused to a sidewalk by the roots of a tree (see, Darringer v Furtsch, 225 AD2d 577; Yass v Deepdale Gardens, 187 AD2d 506; Zawacki v Town of N. Hempstead, 184 AD2d 697; Orjuela v City of New York, 87 AD2d 645; Friedman v Gearrity, 33 AD2d 1044). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defect in the sidewalk was caused in any part by an improper or negligent repair, or by any special use by the defendants James Couchells and Christina Couchells, the abutting landowners. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 2, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendants James Couchells and Christina Couchells for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an abutting landowner is not responsible for damage caused to a sidewalk by the roots of a tree (see, Darringer v Furtsch, 225 AD2d 577; Yass v Deepdale Gardens, 187 AD2d 506; Zawacki v Town of N. Hempstead, 184 AD2d 697; Orjuela v City of New York, 87 AD2d 645; Friedman v Gearrity, 33 AD2d 1044). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defect in the sidewalk was caused in any part by an improper or negligent repair, or by any special use by the defendants James Couchells and Christina Couchells, the abutting landowners. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 472, 657 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack