Webb v. City of New York
This text of Webb v. City of New York (Webb 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Webb v City of New York
2026 NY Slip Op 04228
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Collette Webb, appellant,
v
City of New York, defendant, Charles Price, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2024-04495, (Index No. 708839/20)
Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
Lillian Wan
Lourdes M. Ventura
Susan Quirk, JJ.
Bergman, Bergman, Fields & Lamonsoff, LLP, Hicksville, NY (Sarah R. Gitomer and Clifford D. Gabel of counsel), for appellant.
Powell Kugelman & Postell, LLC, New York, NY (Joseph M. Powell of counsel), for respondents Charles Price and Lena Price.
Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Karin Wolfe of counsel), for defendant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chereé A. Buggs, J.), dated December 12, 2023. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Charles Price and Lena Price which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants Charles Price and Lena Price.
The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk condition abutting a one-family residential property (hereinafter the premises) owned by the defendant Lena Price, who resided at the premises, and her son, the defendant Charles Price (hereinafter together the Price defendants). The plaintiff commenced this action against the Price defendants and the defendant City of New York to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained. In an amended order dated December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the Price defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiff appeals.
"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 places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty" (Petrillo v Town of Hempstead, 85 AD3d 996, 997; see Giuntini v City of New York, 226 AD3d 651, 652). Here, the Price defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that they did not create the uneven condition by negligently repairing the abutting sidewalk (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). According to Lena Price, who had resided at the premises since the [*2]1960s, the roots of a tree abutting the sidewalk had previously caused the sidewalk to become uneven, and, after the sidewalk had been repaired approximately two years prior to the plaintiff's fall, the roots of the tree had caused the sidewalk to become uneven again. "An abutting landowner is not responsible for damage caused to a sidewalk by the roots of a tree" (Simmons v Guthrie, 304 AD2d 819, 820; see Missirlakis v McCarthy, 145 AD3d 772, 773). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Price defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Webb v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2026.