Wright v. City of New York

Opinion

Wright v City of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 05352

September 16, 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.

Bruce Wright, plaintiff,

v

America U.S.A., LLC, et al., appellants; City of New York, third-party defendant-respondent.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 16, 2026

2025-02969, (Index No. 522888/18)

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Lourdes M. Ventura

Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.

Sobel Pevzner, LLC, New York, NY (Jyoti M. Halsband of counsel), for appellants.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patria Frias-Colón, J.), dated October 18, 2024. The order granted the third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he tripped and fell on a sidewalk abutting a building located in Brooklyn and owned by the defendants third-party plaintiffs, America U.S.A., LLC, and USA Mini Storage, Inc. (hereinafter together the USA defendants). The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the USA defendants, and the USA defendants commenced a third-party action against the third-party defendant, City of New York, seeking contribution and indemnification. After discovery, the City moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. The Supreme Court granted the City's motion. The USA defendants appeal.

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 "imposes a duty upon owners of certain real property to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property in a reasonably safe condition, and provides that said owners," rather than the City, "are liable for personal injury that is proximately caused by such failure" (Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC, 26 NY3d 793, 797; see Gallis v 23-21 33 Rd., LLC, 198 AD3d 730, 732; Harakidas v City of New York, 86 AD3d 624, 626). Nevertheless, Administrative Code § 7-210 does not shift tort liability for injuries proximately caused by the City's affirmative acts of negligence (see Rivera v City of New York, 192 AD3d 932; Harakidas v City of New York, 86 AD3d 624, 627).

Here, in opposition to the City's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third-party complaint, the USA defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the City's affirmative acts of negligence. The USA defendants failed to submit any evidence in support of their speculative contention that the plaintiff's fall was related to a condition caused by a fire hydrant on the subject sidewalk (see Gomez v New York City, 175 AD3d 1502, 1503). Indeed, the plaintiff did not mention a fire hydrant during his deposition testimony. Furthermore, any failure on the part of the City to respond to "311" requests to service the fire hydrant would constitute nonfeasance, not an affirmative [*2]act of negligence (see Dragonetti v 301 Mar. Ave. Corp., 180 AD3d 870, 871).

The USA defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court