You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.

The Second Department determined defendant abutting property owner did not demonstrate he owed no duty to the trip and fall plaintiff who allegedly fell over a piece of rebar which was on the sidewalk. The court explained the duty of abutting property owners under the New York City code:

…[L]ability may be imposed on the abutting landowner when the abutting landowner … violated a statute or ordinance imposing liability on the abutting landowner for failing to maintain the sidewalk … .

“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” … . …

Administrative Code section 7-210(a) states that “[i]t shall be the duty of the owner of the real property abutting any sidewalk . . . to maintain such sidewalk in an reasonably safe condition.” Administrative Code section 7-210(b) states that “[f]ailure to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition shall include, but not be limited to . . . the negligent failure to remove snow, ice, dirt or other material from the sidewalk” … . Metzker v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03724, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK)

You might also like
UNLIKE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (DRAM SHOP ACT) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A BAR WHICH SERVES A VISIBLY INTOXICATED PERSON WHO IS LATER INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, A COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION APPLIES ONLY TO INJURIES CAUSED BY AN INTOXICATED PERSON ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY OR IN AN AREA UNDER DEFENDANT’S CONTROL AND SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).
A SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF A DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE; THEREFORE THE CERTIFICATION CANNOT BE SET ASIDE PURSUANT TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213-B(1) WHICH ALLOWS A VICTIM OF A CRIME TO SUE THE PERPETRATOR WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF THE DATE OF CRIME APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PERPETRATOR HAS BEEN “CONVICTED OF [THE] CRIME;” A PERPETRATOR WHO HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED OF A CRIME” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 213-B(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WITH NO EXCUSE WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
DECEDENT’S WIFE’S CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER 9-11 IS SUBJECT TO THE TWO-YEAR DEADLINE FOR NOTICE IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 28; BECAUSE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE DEATH BENEFITS CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
Priority in Custody Disputes Given to Party Initially Awarded Custody
Mechanics of a Motion to Change Venue 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIR... ORDER LIMITING TRIAL EVIDENCE WAS APPEALABLE.