Gomez v. Dime Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. Dime Savings Bank

257 A.D.2d 560, 683 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 119

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 560 (Gomez v. Dime Savings Bank) 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. Dime Savings Bank, 257 A.D.2d 560, 683 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated December 2, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on wet leaves on a public sidewalk in front of one of the defendant’s branch offices. In the absence of an ordinance or statute imposing liability, an abutting landowner may only be held liable for a defective or dangerous condition on a public sidewalk if the landowner created the condition or caused it to occur because of some special use (see, Redner v 37 7th Ave. Tenants Corp., 243 AD2d 456).

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted evidence which demonstrated that it neither created the defective condition nor made a special use of the sidewalk. The plaintiff failed to refute its showing by proffering evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the defendant has established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Gold-stein and Luciano, 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 defendant Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated December 2, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on wet leaves on a public sidewalk in front of one of the defendant’s branch offices. In the absence of an ordinance or statute imposing liability, an abutting landowner may only be held liable for a defective or dangerous condition on a public sidewalk if the landowner created the condition or caused it to occur because of some special use (see, Redner v 37 7th Ave. Tenants Corp., 243 AD2d 456).

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted evidence which demonstrated that it neither created the defective condition nor made a special use of the sidewalk. The plaintiff failed to refute its showing by proffering evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the defendant has established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Gold-stein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 560, 683 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-dime-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack