You are here: / / DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK...
,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant property owner’s (Reda’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. There was a question of fact whether the area where plaintiff fell was in a designated bus stop, where the city would be responsible, or in an area the NYC Administrative Code requires that defendant maintain:

Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell over a gap between flagstones on a public sidewalk abutting property owned by Reda, and south of a bus shelter maintained by defendant City. Under Administrative Code of City of NY § 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” … .

In support of her motion for summary judgment, Reda submitted evidence, including photographs showing where plaintiff fell near a bus shelter and next to a yellow-marked curb, and the City’s admission that it owns the bus stop pole shown in a photograph. However, absent any applicable statute or any evidence defining the parameters of a bus stop, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the part of the sidewalk where plaintiff fell is within a designated bus stop that the City is required to maintain … . McCormick v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07175, First Dept 10-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SIDEWALKS, BUS STOP, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))/BUS STOPS (MUNICIPAL LAW, SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT GYM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ACCUMULATION OF DUST ON THE BASKETBALL COURT FLOOR WAS INHERENT IN THE SPORT OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
CITY OF NEW YORK PROGRAM TO MOVE HOMELESS INTO APARTMENTS VIOLATES THE URSTADT LAW BY IMPOSING RENT CONTROLS ON BUILDINGS NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR CONDITIONED HIS SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AT WORK ON HER COMPLIANCE WITH HIS DEMANDS FOR SEX SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES RE: DEFENDANT SUPERVISOR AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO JURY TRIAL ON MISDEMEANORS, DESPITE POSSIBLE DEPORTATION UPON CONVICTION.
Rebuttal Evidence Re: a Defense that Was Not Asserted Should Not Have Been Allowed (Harmless Error)/Partial Closure of Courtroom During Testimony of Undercover Officers Proper
BUYERS OF THE HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT; BUT THE BUYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABLING ANXIETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.

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

REAL PROPERTY LAW 329 PROVIDES THAT THE OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN BRING ACTIONS... COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE...