Youdelman v. 857 Union LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 30674(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 502465/2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Reginald A. Boddie

Opinion

Youdelman v 857 Union LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 30674(U) February 19, 2026 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 502465/2024 Judge: Reginald A. Boddie Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.5024652024.KINGS.001.LBLX036_TO.html[03/09/2026 3:45:55 PM] !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 502465/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

At an lAS Part 95 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings. at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York on the 19 th day of February 2026.

PRESENT: Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Justice. Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------x

SUSAN YOUDELMAN, Index No. 502465/2024 Plaintiff,

-against- Cal. No. l MS2

857 UNION LLC, 857 UNION ASSOCIATES LLC and BCB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Decision and Order Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x The follow"ing e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. MS 2 32-52

The motion by plaintiff seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability is decided as

follows:

Background

This action arises from an alleged trip-and-fall accident on December 8, 2023, in which

plaintiff claims she was injured after tripping on an uneven and raised sidewalk adjacent to the

premises located at 857 Union Street in Brooklyn, New York. By Default Judgment Order dated

March 17, 2025, Hon. Robin K. Sheares granted plaintiffs motion for default judgment, held

defendant BCB Property Management, Inc. in default, and directed that an inquest be conducted

at the time of trial.

l

[* 1] 1 of 4 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 502465/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on the issue ofliability

against defendants 857 Union LLC and 857 Union Associates LLC, contending that a hazardous

sidewalk defect abutting defendants' property caused her fall, that defendants had constructive

notice of the condition, and that defendants as owners had a non-delegable statutory duty under

NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.

Plaintiff relies on photographic evidence, deposition testimony, and an unrebutted engineer's

affidavit, and argues that any comparative negligence does not bar summary judgment.

In opposition, defendants argue that triable issues of fact exist as to causation and

comparative negligence, emphasizing that the accident was unwitnessed, and that plaintiff was

familiar with the area and admitted she was not looking down prior to the fall, which defendants

contend raises credibility and questions for the jury.

In reply, plaintiff argues that defendants fail to raise any material issue of fact. asserting

that defendants admit ownership and responsibility for the sidewalk and do not meaningfully

dispute the hazardous nature of the defect. Plaintiff argues that defendants' reliance on credibility

is legally insufficient, that an unwitnessed accident does not preclude summary judgment, and that

any comparative negligence goes only to damages and does not defeat liability as a matter of law.

Discussion

It is well established that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted

where there is any doubt as to the existence of a material and triable issue of fact (T Mina Supply

v Clemente Bros. Contr. Corp., 194 AD3d 879, 881 [2d Dept 20211). Once the proponent has

made a prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the motion· s opponent to present evidentiary

facts in admissible form sufficient to raise a genuine, triable issue of fact (Zuckerman v City

New York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980]). If there is any doubt as to the existence ofa triable fact,

2 of 4 [* 2] !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 502465/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

the motion for summary judgment must be denied (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231

[I 978]). Upon a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is one of issue finding rather

than issue determination (id. cilingSillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395,404

[1957]). ··It is not the function of a court ... to make credibility determinations or findings of fact,

but rather to identify material triable issues of fact (or point to the lack thereof)" ( Vega v Restani

Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 505[2012] [citation omitted]).

"By its terms, [s]ection 7-210 unambiguously 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 are liable for personal injury that is proximately caused by such failure"

(Xiang Fu He v Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 NY3d 167, 171 [2019] [citation and internal quotation marks

omitted]). Administrative Code § 7-210 thus imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners of real

property abutting a sidewalk, but it does not impose such a duty upon mere users of the premises

(see id).

Here. plaintiff has established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the

issue ofliability. The record demonstrates that defendants owned the premises abutting the subject

sidewalk and were therefore charged, pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-210, with a non-

delegable duty to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. Plaintiff submitted

admissible evidence establishing the existence of a hazardous sidewalk defect, including

photographs, deposition testimony from defendants' witness acknowledging the raised sidewalk

flag constituted a tripping hazard, and an unrebutted expert affidavit opining that the condition

violated applicable codes and developed over an extended period of time.

Additionally, plaintiff established defendants· constructive notice of the hazardous

condition, which defendants do not meaningfully dispute. Plaintiffs expert opined that the raised

[* 3] 3 of 4 !FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 01:15 P~ INDEX NO. 502465/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

sidewalk flag developed over months or years and therefore existed for a sufficient period of time

to have been discovered upon reasonable inspection. Defendants' own testimony further

established that the sidewalk was regularly traversed and inspected, yet no repairs were

undertaken, demonstrating that the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough to

charge defendants with constructive notice.

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary

judgment. Defendants do not meaningfully dispute ownership, responsibility for sidewalk

maintenance, or the hazardous nature of the defect. Nor do they submit any competing expert

affidavit challenging plaintiffs expert. Instead, defendants rely primarily on the fact that the

accident was unwitnessed and plaintiffs testimony that she was looking straight ahead rather than

down at the sidewalk. It is also well established that "[t]o be entitled to partial summary judgment

a plaintiff does not bear the ... burden of establishing ... the absence of his or her own comparative

fault" (Balladares v City of New York, 177 AD3d 942, 943 [2d Dept 2019] [citations omitted]).

Accordingly, as defendants failed to raise any material issue of fact as to breach, notice. or

causation, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on liability is granted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted. Any

arguments not expressly addressed herein were considered and deemed to be without merit or

unnecessary to address given the court's determination.

ENTER: kt~ Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Justice, Supreme Court

HON. REGINALD A. BODDtE 4 J.S.C.

4 of 4 [* 4]