You are here: / / Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly...
,

Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance)

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined a property owner was responsible for ensuring the safe condition of a sidewalk that did not directly abut the defendant’s property. The sidewalk was separated from the defendant’s property by a strip of land owned by the City. The Court determined the terms “abutting” and “adjoining” in the ordinance making a property owner responsible for the condition of a sidewalk should be construed “to include property in close proximity to an improved sidewalk although separated from it by [the strip of land]”… . James v 1620 Westchester Avenue, LLC, 8710A, 17396/06 1st Dept. 2-7-13

 

You might also like
Spoliation of Evidence.
INCARCERATED FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED IN-PERSON VISITATION WITH HIS SON ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS; FATHER HAD STABBED MOTHER WHILE SHE WAS HOLDING THE CHILD AND FATHER HAD HARASSED MOTHER DURING PERMITTED PHONE CALLS (FIRST DEPT).
$10.5 MILLION VERDICT FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING DEEMED EXCESSIVE IN THIS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF ASKED TO STIPULATE TO $3 MILLION (FIRST DEPT).
AN ESCAPE LADDER BOLTED TO THE CEILING OF A PERSONNEL HOIST DETACHED AND FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAITIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Nervous and Uncooperative Actions by Defendant Justified Search of Area Inside Defendant’s Car After Defendant Was Out of the Car and Had Been Frisked
THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). ​
ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
LEGAL MALPRACTICE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SPECULATION ABOUT THE RESULT OF A HEARING HAD THE LAW FIRM APPEARED IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant’s Behavior Did Not Justify Arrest for Disorderly Conduct general business law 627-a, which requires that a health club have an automated...