You are here: / / Tenant In “Adjacent Property” May Be Responsible for Maintenance...
,

Tenant In “Adjacent Property” May Be Responsible for Maintenance of a Sidewalk Where the Sidewalk is Subject to Special Use by the Tenant as Part of a Driveway

In perhaps the most thorough treatment of the theories of liability for a dangerous condition on a city sidewalk ever written, the Fourth Department explained the potential liability of the various abutting and “adjacent” property owners/tenants of the area where plaintiff slipped and fell.  Only the discussion of the “special use” by tenants (Bison) of “adjacent property” is excerpted here:

“Where a sidewalk is adjacent to but not part of the area used as a driveway, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment of showing that the special use of the sidewalk contributed to the defect . . . However, if the defect is in the portion of the sidewalk used as a driveway, the abutting landowner, on a motion for summary judgment, bears the burden of establishing that he or she did nothing to either create the defective condition or cause the condition through the special use of the property as a driveway” … . The same principle applies to a commercial tenant of property where the driveway constitutes a special use by the tenant … .

While the area of the dangerous condition is in a City right-of-way that falls within the extended lot line boundaries of the property owned by Seneca One, we conclude that the Bison defendants, as lessors of the “adjacent property,” may nevertheless still be liable if there is evidence that they had “access to and ability to exercise control over the special use [driveway]” … . We conclude that the Bison defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they lacked access to and the ability to control that special use driveway … and, further, failed to establish as a matter of law “that they did not affirmatively create the defect by any alleged special use of the sidewalk as a driveway” … . Indeed, based on the evidence submitted by the Bison defendants in support of their motion, it is reasonable to conclude that the “driveway apron was constructed and exclusively used for the benefit of [the Bison defendants’ leased] property” … . The only places that could be accessed by the driveway were the stadium and the surface parking lot, both of which were located on the property leased by Bison Baseball. We thus conclude that the court properly denied their motion seeking to dismiss the negligence claims asserted against the Bison defendants insofar as those claims were based on their special use of the driveway … . Capretto v City of Buffalo, 2015 NY Slip Op 00055, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER INSTEAD OF THE SCISSORS LIFT CREATED THE SAFETY ISSUE LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE OPERATOR OF THE SCISSORS LIFT WOULD NOT ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO ACCESS IT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND; THE ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED AND THE COUNT DISMISSED; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Suit Against City for Attempting to Resuscitate Plaintiff with an Inoperable Defibrillator Properly Dismissed—No Special Duty Owed to Plaintiff
Reversible Error to Instruct the Jury On an Affirmative Defense Over Defense Counsel’s Objection
Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not Include Any Offense Which Was In the Indictment, or Any Lesser Included Offense
THE APPEAL WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET; THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS HELD BUT SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE A RULING; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED AGAIN FOR THE RULING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PETITIONER DID NOT LIVE IN THE TOWN WHERE THE CHALLENGED CANDIDATE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK THE RESPONDENT CANDIDATES’ ANSWER BASED UPON ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION AND DENIALS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE PLEA WAS VACATED (FOURTH 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

Seizure of Claimant’s Computers Pursuant to a Warrant Did Not Give Rise... Release Which Specifically Refers to a Particular Incident Relates Solely to...