You are here: / / Abutting Landowners Are Not Required, Pursuant to the NYC Administrative...
,

Abutting Landowners Are Not Required, Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, to Remove Ice and Snow from Pedestrian Ramps—The Ramps Are Not Part of the Sidewalk

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department explained that pedestrian ramps are not part of the sidewalk and therefore abutting landowners are not required to remove ice and snow from a pedestrian ramp:

“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” … . “However, pedestrian ramps are not part of the sidewalk for the purpose of imposing liability on abutting landowners pursuant to that provision” … . Stanziale v City of New York, 2014 Slip Op 08825, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

You might also like
FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE MAY HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, THEY WERE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT).
Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Summary Judgment In Favor of Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Attorney-Defendants Demonstrated the Dismissal of the Complaint Was an Error Which Would Have Been Corrected Had the Plaintiffs Appealed—Therefore There Was No Question of Fact Whether the Actions of the Attorneys Constituted the Proximate Cause of the Damages Alleged
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING DAMAGES IS ENFORCEABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS SERVED ONE DAY LATE, AND PLAINTIFF WAS SO NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ALSO INDICATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING THE CLAIM; THE CITY WAS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED (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

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Contract for the Installation of Marble... Condition Precedent to Arbitration Re: a Hit-and-Run Accident Involving an Unidentified...