You are here: / / BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION...
,

BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine a basement business office did not deprive defendants of the residential exemption (for one, two and three family residences) from liability for a defective sidewalk:

In 2003, the New York City Council enacted section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to shift tort liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . This liability shifting provision does not, however, apply to “one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” … . “The purpose of the exception in the Code is to recognize the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair” … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they were exempt from liability pursuant to the subject code exception. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants’ partial use of the basement as an office space was merely incidental to their residential use of the property … . [Defendant] Alexander Dembitzer was the director of a summer camp located in upstate New York, and during the off-season, he used the basement to conduct the camp’s business. The defendants did not claim the home office as a tax deduction, their home address was only used to receive the camp’s mail during the off-season, and they did not use the office space with any regularity. Koronkevich v Dembitzer, 2017 NY Slip Op 01187, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/NEGLIGENCE (BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (SIDEWALKS, BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/SIDEWALKS (MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC), BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK)

You might also like
Village Immune from Suit Alleging Negligence of Ambulance Personnel Who Responded to a 911 Call
ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTERING AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
Sexual Offense Convictions Reversed as Against the Weight of the Evidence—Too Many Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Proof
Court Has Discretion to Deny a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Pursuant to CPLR 3216 Even in the Absence of an Adequate Excuse and a Showing of a Potentially Meritorious Cause of Action
WHERE NEITHER PARENT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE GREATER RESOURCES SHOULD BE DEEMED THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY AND PHYSICIAN REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, ARGUING PLAINTIFF MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SPECIFY HOW PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM BUT NOT THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (NYSTA); ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE (IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) WAS NOT VALID, THE ACTION HAD MERIT AND THE NYSTA HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THEREFORE CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE A LATE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY...