Macchia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macchia v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 451, 708 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5580

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 451 (Macchia 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

Macchia v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 451, 708 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 7, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Tov U Maitiv Glatt Kosher and Eshkol Place Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty (see, Meyer v Guinta, 262 AD2d 463; Winberry v City of New York, 257 AD2d 618). The Supreme Court in the instant case properly awarded summary judgment to the respondents (see, Goodman v 78 W. 47th St. Corp., 253 AD2d 384). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated June 7, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Tov U Maitiv Glatt Kosher and Eshkol Place Corp. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty (see, Meyer v Guinta, 262 AD2d 463; Winberry v City of New York, 257 AD2d 618). The Supreme Court in the instant case properly awarded summary judgment to the respondents (see, Goodman v 78 W. 47th St. Corp., 253 AD2d 384). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 451, 708 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macchia-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack