You are here: / / Abutting Property Owner Did Not Have a Duty to Maintain Crowd Control Barriers...
,

Abutting Property Owner Did Not Have a Duty to Maintain Crowd Control Barriers Placed on Sidewalk by City

The Second Department determined abutting property owners had no duty to maintain crowd control barriers erected by the City on sidewalks during the holiday season.  Therefore, plaintiff, who was allegedly injured tripping over a barrier, did not have a cause of action against the abutting property owner:

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on the municipality, and not the abutting landowner … . However, an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a sidewalk where the landowner created the defect, caused the defect to occur by some special use of the sidewalk, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk … . “Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner” … . Legislative enactment in derogation of the common law which creates liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed … .

Under the circumstances presented here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the barrier at issue, which was part of a long chain of barriers erected by the NYPD as part of its crowd control measures during the holiday season, was not part of the “sidewalk” for purposes of liability under Administrative Code § 7-210 … . Accordingly, Administrative Code § 7-210 is inapplicable and the defendant had no duty to maintain the barriers. Staruch v 1328 Broadway Owners, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07467, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

You might also like
Libel Action Against Reporter Dismissed—No Showing of Gross Irresponsibility in Gathering and Verifying Information
Trial Court’s Failure to Properly Characterize the Nature of the Jury’s Request for “Clarification” of Certain Counts Was a Reversible Mode of Proceedings Error
ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL ROLES, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIL DISCLOSURE, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE ARE NOT (SECOND DEPT).
In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case Improper Notice of Benefit Termination; Four-Month S/L Never Triggered; Termination...