Waldron v. City of New York

260 A.D.2d 471, 688 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3821
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 471 (Waldron 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
Waldron v. City of New York, 260 A.D.2d 471, 688 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

[472]*472—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 28, 1998, as granted the separate cross motions of the defendants Sonia Lashley and Conrad McCook for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell on a triangularly-cracked portion of a public sidewalk abutting attached premises located at 702 and 706 Lincoln Avenue in Brooklyn. The plaintiff brought the present action against both the defendant City of New York and the respondent owners of the premises abutting the sidewalk. The action against the City was subsequently discontinued.

The respondents’ cross motions for summary judgment were properly granted. The law is well settled that an abutting landowner will not be liable to a person passing by on a public sidewalk unless the landowner created the defective condition or caused the defect to occur because of some special use, or unless a statute or ordinance placed the obligation to maintain the sidewalk upon him or her and imposed tort liability for failure to do so (see, Alessi v Zapolsky, 228 AD2d 531; Figueroa v City of New York, 227 AD2d 373).

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the respondents created the defect, whether the defect arose because of the respondents’ special use of the sidewalk as a driveway, or whether the respondents breached a statutory duty to maintain the sidewalk. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lee v. City of New York
307 A.D.2d 256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ivanyushkina v. City of New York
300 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Breger v. City of New York
297 A.D.2d 770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Calcaterra v. Home Federal Savings Bank
294 A.D.2d 324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Marable v. City of New Rochelle
284 A.D.2d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Cerminara v. City of New York
273 A.D.2d 187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Cahill v. Foodland Deli of L.I., Inc.
270 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D.2d 471, 688 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldron-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.