Sharif v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sharif v. City of New York

256 A.D.2d 111, 692 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13284

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 111 (Sharif 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

Sharif v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 111, 692 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis GangelJacob, J.), entered October 21, 1997, which denied the motion of defendants Katz and Ayelet Realty Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants-appellants’ motion granted and the complaint dismissed as to them. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The motion court erred in denying the moving defendants summary judgment. “[A]bsent an obligation created by statute or ordinance, an abutting landowner or lessee will be held responsible for maintaining or repairing defects in a public sidewalk only if the owner or lessee created the defect, or the owner or lessee uses the sidewalk for a special purpose” (Frank v City of New York, 211 AD2d 478). Where such a defendant moves for summary judgment and competently denies “having contributed in any way to the allegedly defective condition of the sidewalk”, the plaintiff must present evidence opposing the denial (Morrissey v City of New York, 248 AD2d 294).

The plaintiff fails to offer such opposing evidence and instead offers only speculation that defendants must have made the defective sidewalk repairs at issue here, since they were purportedly obligated to do so by various City provisions, and an improper inference based on the City’s denial that it made the repairs (see, e.g., Morrissey v City of New York, supra, at 295 [“the mere fact that the City denied making the repairs to the sidewalk did not constitute evidence that (defendants) had performed the repair”]). Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-152 and the other City provisions cited do not impose liability on the moving defendants under these circumstances, since they do not specifically impose liability for injuries resulting from the breach of the duty to maintain the sidewalk (see, Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 453). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis GangelJacob, J.), entered October 21, 1997, which denied the motion of defendants Katz and Ayelet Realty Co. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants-appellants’ motion granted and the complaint dismissed as to them. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The motion court erred in denying the moving defendants summary judgment. “[A]bsent an obligation created by statute or ordinance, an abutting landowner or lessee will be held responsible for maintaining or repairing defects in a public sidewalk only if the owner or lessee created the defect, or the owner or lessee uses the sidewalk for a special purpose” (Frank v City of New York, 211 AD2d 478). Where such a defendant moves for summary judgment and competently denies “having contributed in any way to the allegedly defective condition of the sidewalk”, the plaintiff must present evidence opposing the denial (Morrissey v City of New York, 248 AD2d 294).

The plaintiff fails to offer such opposing evidence and instead offers only speculation that defendants must have made the defective sidewalk repairs at issue here, since they were purportedly obligated to do so by various City provisions, and an improper inference based on the City’s denial that it made the repairs (see, e.g., Morrissey v City of New York, supra, at 295 [“the mere fact that the City denied making the repairs to the sidewalk did not constitute evidence that (defendants) had performed the repair”]). Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-152 and the other City provisions cited do not impose liability on the moving defendants under these circumstances, since they do not specifically impose liability for injuries resulting from the breach of the duty to maintain the sidewalk (see, Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 453). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 111, 692 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharif-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack