You are here: / / VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE...
,

VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell on a concrete sidewalk and sued both the village and the abutting property owner. The village code required abutting property owners to keep sidewalks in good repair but did not impose tort liability for failure to keep the sidewalk in good epair. To hold an abutting property owner liable, therefore, plaintiff must demonstrate the property owner created the dangerous condition or subjected the sidewalk to special use:

Although the Code of Incorporated Village of Valley Stream requires an abutting landowner to keep a sidewalk in good and safe repair …. , it does not specifically impose tort liability for a breach of that duty … . Thus, without proof that [the property owner] either created the alleged defective condition or caused it to occur because of a special use, which is absent in the record before us, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . Obee v Ricotta, 2016 NY Slip Op 05129, 2nd Dept 6-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS,  VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, VILLAGE CODE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MAKE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILING TO MAINTAIN A SIDEWALK; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF)

You might also like
FATHER WAS NEVER PROPERLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND NEVER WAIVED THAT RIGHT, ORDER OF COMMITMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE OF A JOINT TENANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED UPON DEATH, THE ESTATE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS SLIGHTLY LATE; TO DENY THE REQUEST IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCERNABLE INTERFERENCE OR UNDUE DELAY WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION DID NOT CEASE UPON MOTHER’S DEATH; MATERNAL GRANDFATHER’S PETITION SEEKING TO BE MADE THE CHILD-SUPPORT PAYEE RETROACTIVE TO MOTHER’S DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IRRELEVANT PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ADMITTED SOLELY TO AROUSE THE EMOTIONS OF THE JURY; THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION WERE SIMILARLY IMPROPER; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CAR MERELY FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE.
THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Tractor-Trailer Veered Into Oncoming Lane Striking Bus/Emergency Doctrine Required Dismissal of Complaint Against Bus Company and Driver as a Matter of Law/Lessor of Trailer Protected Against Vicarious Liability by Graves Amendment/Negligent Entrustment Cause of Action Against Lessor of Trailer Dismissed as a Matter of Law (No Special Knowledge Use of Trailer by Lessee Would Render It Unreasonably Dangerous)

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF... LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO...