Nunez v. City of New York

41 A.D.3d 677, 838 N.Y.S.2d 619
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 2007·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

[678] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Manhasset Homes Corp. and Mered Properties, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered October 24, 2006, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff, Elvin Nunez, allegedly sustained injuries when the front tire of the bicycle he was riding went into a hole in the sidewalk abutting property owned by the defendant Manhasset Homes Corp. (hereinafter Manhasset), and he was catapulted to the ground.

“[Ajbutting landowners are liable for a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owners either created the defective condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation on them to maintain the sidewalk and expressly makes them liable for injuries caused by breach of that duty” (Breger v City of New York, 297 AD2d 770, 771 [2002]; see Lowenthal v Theodore H. Heidrich Realty Corp., 304 AD2d 725, 726 [2003]). The use of a sidewalk as a driveway may constitute a special use (see Colonna v Allen, 35 AD3d 517 [2006]). The testimony of Manhasset’s president, Edgardo Kramer, as well as photographs taken of the accident scene after the occurrence, showed that Manhasset may have been using the area of the sidewalk where the accident occurred as a driveway into the construction site. The appellants did not meet their burden of establishing that they did nothing to either create the defective condition or cause the condition through a special use of the sidewalk (see Breger v City of New York, supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Baltin, JJ., concur.

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

Nunez v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 677, 838 N.Y.S.2d 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

41 A.D.3d 677 (Nunez v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Starks v. State of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 51501(U) (New York State Court of Claims, 2024)
Hopwah v. State of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 50260(U) (New York State Court of Claims, 2024)
Dominguez v. State of New York
2023 NY Slip Op 51521(U) (New York State Court of Claims, 2023)
Sacher v. State of New York
211 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Correa v. State of New York
174 N.Y.S.3d 110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of DeMairo v. State of New York
2019 NY Slip Op 3591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Bermudez v. State
44 Misc. 3d 605 (New York State Court of Claims, 2014)
Moravec v. City University of New York
32 Misc. 3d 681 (New York State Court of Claims, 2011)
Karnikolas v. Wengert
81 A.D.3d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. State
30 Misc. 3d 693 (New York State Court of Claims, 2010)
John v. City of New York
77 A.D.3d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Serano v. New York City Housing Authority
66 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Campos v. Midway Cabinets, Inc.
51 A.D.3d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)