Partridge v. Pinzino

227 A.D.2d 460, 642 N.Y.S.2d 933
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 13, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 460 (Partridge v. Pinzino) 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
Partridge v. Pinzino, 227 A.D.2d 460, 642 N.Y.S.2d 933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated May 19, 1995, which granted the motion of the defendants Stephen D. Pinzino and Charlene Pinzino for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Adam Partridge allegedly suffered injuries when he fell off of his bicycle after riding over an uneven portion of a public sidewalk abutting property owned by the defendants Stephen D. Pinzino and Charlene Pinzino. Thereafter, the plaintiffs brought this personal injury action against the defendants.

The court properly granted the motion of the defendants Stephen D. Pinzino and Charlene Pinzino for summary judgment (see, Zawacki v Town of N. Hempstead, 184 AD2d.697). "It is well settled that the owner of land abutting on a public sidewalk does not, solely by reason of being an abutting owner, owe to the public a duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition” (Davi v Alhamidy, 207 AD2d 859, 860). The plaintiffs presented no evidence in admissible form that the installation by the Pinzinos of a cesspool in front of their home caused the allegedly defective condition of the sidewalk. Assertions to this effect by the plaintiffs’ counsel were merely speculation and conjecture unsupported by the record and, therefore, were insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Davi v Alhamidy, supra, at 860). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Levin v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 34391(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Zarbaliyeva v. Fone Management Enterprises, Inc.
300 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 460, 642 N.Y.S.2d 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partridge-v-pinzino-nyappdiv-1996.