You are here: / / Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Property Owners Are Not...
,

Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Property Owners Are Not Responsible for the Maintenance of Tree Wells Within the Sidewalk

The Second Department noted that the abutting property owner’s responsibility for the safety of the sidewalk (under the New York City Administrative Code) does not extend to tree wells within the sidewalk:

“Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition on a public sidewalk is placed on the municipality, and not on the owner of the abutting land” … . “Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective on September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the abutting property owner; however, a tree well is not part of the sidewalk’ for purposes of that section of Administrative Code of the City of New York”… . Avezbakiyev v Champion Commons LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07966, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

You might also like
INFECTING A VICTIM WITH HIV CONSTITUTES “PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF RISK FACTOR 1 RE: THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT; HOWEVER THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT IN FACT INFECTED THE VICTIM WITH HIV WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
Interpretation of Unambiguous Language; Doctrine of Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterious; Criteria for Declaratory Judgment 
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER A CHAIR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER THE CHAIR, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE OFFICER REENTERED THE HOME TO LOOK UNDER THE CHAIR (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND MATERIAL IN EVIDENCE DESPITE NOT HAVING PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURIES; THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT CAUSATION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERT REPORT (SECOND DEPT).
Differences Between Civil and Criminal Contempt Explained

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

Pursuant to the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor, Seller of Home Was Not Obligated... Rent-Stabilized Apartment Lease Is Exempt from the Bankruptcy Estate