You are here: / / ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS;...
,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not liable for plaintiff’s slip and fall because abutting property owners are not responsible for the condition of tree wells in a sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 places the duty to maintain a sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition on the owner of the property abutting the sidewalk, and provides for civil liability for injuries proximately caused by the failure to so maintain the sidewalk. However, the statute does not extend that duty of maintenance to City-owned tree wells or provide for civil liability for injuries occurring in City-owned tree wells … . Thus, liability may be imposed on the abutting landowner for injuries caused by a dangerous condition in a tree well only where the landowner has “affirmatively created the dangerous condition, negligently made repairs to the area, [or] caused the dangerous condition to occur through a special use of that area” … .

Here, [defendant] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it had no duty to maintain the City-owned tree well, did not create the allegedly dangerous condition, did not negligently repair the sidewalk abutting the tree well, and did not cause the condition to occur through any special use of the tree well. Powroznik v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01655, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT TURNED 21 DURING THE FAMILY OFFENSE HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION; NOR DID THE INCAPACITY OF THE COMPLAINANT (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF POSSESSION OF THE NOTE WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WAS HEARSAY; PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Budget
DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation
PARTY IS DEEMED TO HAVE READ A SIGNED DOCUMENT, JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON THIS CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE PROPERLY GRANTED, BANKING LAW REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAITED UNTIL AFTER THE PROSECUTOR MADE SEVERAL ARGUABLY IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION BEFORE OBJECTING “TO ALL OF THIS;” THE OBJECTION WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY, VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS, GENERAL AND NONSPECIFIC; THEREFORE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (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

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ONE OF THE ROBBERIES AND THE... LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT...