You are here: / / ABUTTING LANDOWNER HAS NO DUTY TO MAINTAIN A TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK,...
,

ABUTTING LANDOWNER HAS NO DUTY TO MAINTAIN A TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the abutting landowner (Glynton) in this slip and fall case did not have a duty to maintain the sidewalk tree well where plaintiff fell:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210, which became effective September 14, 2003, shifted tort liability for injuries arising from a defective sidewalk from the City to the abutting property owner … . However, a tree well does not fall within the applicable Administrative Code definition of “sidewalk” and, thus, “section 7-210 does not impose civil liability on property owners for injuries that occur in city-owned tree wells” … . Here, Glynton established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff fell due to a condition related to the tree well, not due to any condition concerning the sidewalk, and that it had no duty to maintain the tree well … . Barrios v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03311, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

You might also like
Court Not Required to Obtain a New Risk Assessment Instrument After People Filed a Petition for an Upward Modification Based Upon a New Offense Committed In Violation of Defendant’s Probation
A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY WHICH VIOLATES NEW YORK LAW IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Similar Pending Lawsuit Properly Dismissed—Two Lawsuits Sought Declaratory Judgment Re: Duty to Defend and Indemnify
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 17 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DRIVER HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, HE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF’S PASSENGER, HOWEVER.
THE COVID STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLL FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER 2020 DID NOT ONLY APPLY TO ACTIONS WHOSE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED DURING THAT PERIOD; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A COMMON LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT (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

RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A SMALL CLAIMS... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY...