You are here: / / THE CITY (NYC) HAD ENTERED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT PROPERTY...
, ,

THE CITY (NYC) HAD ENTERED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNING THE REPAIR OF A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK, DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined defendant property owners, the Bilellos, were entitled to contribution from the city (NYC), based upon a special relationship with the city, in a sidewalk slip and fall case. Tree roots had raised the sidewalk in front of the Bilellos property. The city issued a notice of violation to the Bilellos and the Bilellos were told by the city not to touch the sidewalk until a plan for repair was developed by the city. The Department of Forestry never got in touch with the Bilellos and plaintiff tripped and fell over the defect 11 months after the Bilellos' last communication from the city:

Here, it is undisputed that the City did not owe a direct duty of care to the plaintiff, because the 2003 enactment of Administrative Code of City New York 7-210 shifted liability for injuries arising from sidewalk defects from the City to the abutting property owner … . However, if the City owed an independent, special duty to the Bilellos, it may be held liable “for the portion of the damage attributable to [its] negligence, despite the fact that the duty violated was not one owing directly to the injured person” … . “Such a duty is found when a special relationship exists between the municipality and an individual or class of persons warranting the imposition of a duty to use reasonable care for those persons' benefit” … . To establish the existence of a special relationship based on a municipality's voluntary assumption of a duty, the party asserting the relationship has a heavy burden to prove the following elements: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the party; and (4) the party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking … . Stanciu v Bilello, 2016 NY Slip Op 02802, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON FOR THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE LISTED BUT NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE REPORT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE AT A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED THE TIME PERIOD WHEN THE ABUSE ALLEGEDLY TOOK PLACE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FATHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED.
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (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

RADIOLOGIST WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF... EXTENSIONS OF NONCONFORMING USE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.