You are here: / / THE TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS THE...
, ,

THE TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF THE CITY, NOT DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined that maintenance of the tree well within the sidewalk where plaintiff fell was the responsibility of the city, not the defendant property owner:

Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting plaintiff’s pleadings and deposition testimony, along with photographic evidence showing the area where the sidewalk connects to the tree well and marked by plaintiff at her deposition to show where she fell. This evidence, taken together, establishes that plaintiff fell when she stepped into and out of the perimeter of the tree well, not when she stepped on an uneven sidewalk slab or other sidewalk defect … . The perimeter of the tree well is not part of the sidewalk whose maintenance is the responsibility of the abutting property owner under Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 … . Rather, the perimeter of the tree well is part of the tree well itself, which the City, not the property owner responsible for the sidewalk, has the obligation to maintain in a safe condition … .

Defendant also submitted an affidavit and deposition testimony from one of its owners, stating that the tree wells near the property were installed by the City and that neither defendant nor any building tenant constructed the tree well, maintained it, repaired it, or put it to special use. This evidence was sufficient to show that defendant did not affirmatively create the dangerous condition, negligently make repairs to the area, or cause the dangerous condition to occur through a special use of the area. Thus, there was no basis to impose liability on the defendant … . Cabral v Triangle, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00187, First Dept 1-14-25

Practice Point: In NYC tree wells, as opposed to the surrounding sidewalks, are the responsibility of the city, not the abutting property owner. Here plaintiff tripped and fell stepping into a tree well. Defendant abutting property owner was off-the-hook.

 

You might also like
LEGAL MALPRACTICE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SPECULATION ABOUT THE RESULT OF A HEARING HAD THE LAW FIRM APPEARED IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS CROSSWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE MUNICIPALITY REPAIRED THE AREA FIVE MONTHS BEFORE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DIRECTING THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY STATED FACTS AMOUNTING TO A BREACH-OF-FIDUCIARY-DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKER, DESPITE PLAINTIFF-SELLER’S CONSENT TO THE BROKER’S “DUAL AGENCY;” IT WAS ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS AWARE THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD BY THE BUYERS FOR THREE TIMES THE PRICE AND SHE WOULD BE THE BUYERS’ BROKER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALES (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS SMALL, THE AREA WAS DARKENED BY SCAFFOLDING; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INSURER (WHICH PAID PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR LOSSES) AS A PLAINTIFF UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FOR AN INDEPENDENT SUBROGATION ACTION) (FIRST 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

AT SENTENCING THE PROSECUTOR REFERENCED EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO... THE CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF...