You are here: / / THE PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT A BUS STOP, WHERE THE CITY...
,

THE PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT A BUS STOP, WHERE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE AREA SAFE, AS OPPOSED TO THE SIDEWALK ABUTTING DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY, WHERE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although the NYC Administrative Code makes abutting property owner’s like the defendant responsible for keeping the sidewalks safe, the Code also indicates the City is responsible for keeping bus stops safe. The defendant argued plaintiff slipped and fell at a bus stop, but the Second Department did not find the evidence for that claim sufficient to warrant summary judgment:

Under Administrative Code § 7-210, an abutting property owner has a duty to maintain the public sidewalk, but the City continues to be responsible for maintaining any part of the sidewalk that is within a designated bus stop location … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the area of the sidewalk where the accident occurred was within a designated bus stop location maintained by the City … . Moonilal v Roman Catholic Church of St. Mary Gate of Heaven, 2024 NY Slip Op 01172, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, abutting property owners are responsible for keeping the sidewalk safe, but the City is responsible for keeping bus stops safe.

 

You might also like
Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel as Applied to Public Corporations Explained
THE NOTICE TO ADMIT SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTROVERSY AND THEREFORE WAS PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
NONPARTY LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE THE BANK OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
RADIOLOGIST WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEFORMITY WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM A FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE A FRACTURE. 
FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO FATHER THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S ACCESS TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Frye Hearing Should Have Been Held to Determine Admissibility of an Actuarial Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool as Proof of a Mental Abnormality
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FOR PERSONS DRIVING COUNTY CARS (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

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NURSING HOME IS... THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE APPELLANT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING...