You are here: / / Owners/Occupiers of a Single Family Residence Not Responsible for Maintaining...
,

Owners/Occupiers of a Single Family Residence Not Responsible for Maintaining Abutting Sidewalk Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code

The Second Department exercised its discretion to hear an appeal which had been dismissed for failure to perfect and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.  Defendants owned and occupied a single-family residence.  Therefore, pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York, defendants were not responsible for maintaining the sidewalk abutting the property:

On February 20, 2008, the injured plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject property was a single-family residence, that it was owner occupied, and that it was used solely for residential purposes (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210[b]), thus exempting them from liability pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(b) for the alleged failure to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property … . Saunders v Tarsia, 2015 NY Slip Op 00352, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

You might also like
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT PROPERLY EVALUATED THE TEACHER’S BACKGROUND BEFORE HIRING HER AND WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY CASE, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED BECAUSE FATHER AND CHILD RESIDE OUT-OF-STATE (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUESTING AN AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DID NOT SPECIFY CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE SIX-MONTH TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) APPLIED AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS ALLEGED ONE MAN INTENDED TO DOUSE ANOTHER WITH LIQUID IN A CUP BUT UNINTENTIONALLY THREW THE CUP ITSELF CAUSING INJURY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT OR AN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO FURTHER INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT SENTENCE HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT BASED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION SHE DID NOT COMPLETE A MENTAL HEALTH COURT PROGRAM (SECOND DEPT).
Consent Order Not Appealable; Open Court Stipulation Valid

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

Although Defendant Was Not Responsible for the Pedestrian Ramp, There Was a... Plaintiff Was Unable to Pinpoint the Cause of Her Fall—“Feigned...