You are here: / / Abutting Landowners’ Responsibilties for Sidewalk Defects and Defects...
,

Abutting Landowners’ Responsibilties for Sidewalk Defects and Defects Relating to Covers and Gratings Explained

The Second Department explained the New York City law applicable to the responsibilty of abutting landowners with respect to sidewalks, and with respect to covers or gratings within or near the sidewalks:

…[L]iability 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 … . Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which was in effect at the time of the accident, shifts liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . Legislative enactments in derogation of the common law which create liability where none previously existed must be strictly construed … . Hence, while section 7-210 expressly shifts tort liability to the abutting property owner for injuries proximately caused by the owner’s failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, it does not supersede pre-existing regulations such as 34 RCNY 2-07(b), which provides that “owners of covers or gratings on a street are responsible for monitoring the condition of the covers and gratings and the area extending twelve inches outward from the perimeter of the hardware” (34 RCNY 2-07[b][1]…).  Roman v Bob’s Discount Furniture of NY LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02762, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

You might also like
CONVICTION OF A LESSER INCLUDED COUNT OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT (I.E. COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT AGAINST A CHILD) VACATED (SECOND DEPT),
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL.
THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Money Available to Father from Relatives for Children’s College Expenses Should Have Been Considered in Allocating those Expenses between Mother and Father
MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN A SUIT BY LIMOUSINE DRIVERS AGAINST LIMOUSINE SERVICE PROVIDERS ALLEGING UNDERPAYMENT, THE DEFENDANT LIMOUSINE SERVICES PROVIDERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAXICAB EXCEPTION FROM LABOR LAW WAGE REQUIREMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVERS WERE PRECLUDED FROM SUIT BY THE TAX ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (WHERE A PARTY ASSERTS A POSITION CONTRADICTED BY INFORMATION IN TAX FORMS) (SECOND 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

Allegation that Town Planted a Tree Near a Sidewalk and Did Not Maintain the... Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether...