You are here: / / LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE...
, ,

LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.

The Second Department determined the lessee of property abutting a sidewalk and the city (NYC) were entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The city argued it did not have prior written notice of the hole in the sidewalk. The lessee, El Fuerte, argued it did not create the dangerous condition, did not violate any statute or ordinance, and the lease imposed no duty to repair the sidewalk. With regard to the liability of the abutting property owner, the court noted that, although a curb cut and pedestrian ramp leading from a sidewalk to the street are not the responsibility of the abutting property owner, the defect here was not in the curb cut or ramp:

… [A] lessee of property which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting lessee either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon the lessee for injuries caused by a violation of that duty … . * * * … [A] provision of a lease which obligates a tenant to repair a sidewalk does not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party, such as the plaintiff. Martin v Rizzatti, 2016 NY Slip Op 05797, 2nd Dept 8-17-16

NEGLIGENCE (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL, LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/SIDEWALKS (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)/SLIP AND FALL (LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE)

You might also like
Text Messages Authenticated Because They “Made No Sense” Unless Defendant Sent Them
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). ​
Service Requirements of Education Law 3813(1) Do Not Apply to Disputes Involving the Public Interest As Opposed to Private Rights/Criteria for Granting an Extension (Nunc Pro Tunc) to Effect Service Pursuant to CPLR 306-b Explained
FIRE DISTRICT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE FIRE DISTRICT RAISED AN ECONOMIC CONCERN ABOUT INCREASED SERVICE CALLS, NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (SECOND DEPT).
NO ONE WITNESSED FOUR-YEAR-OLD’S INJURY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, INFANT PLAINTIFF SAID SHE WAS INJURED ON AN INFLATABLE SLIDE (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).
Town Failed to Demonstrate It Conducted a Sufficient Search for Written Notice of Defect in Slip and Fall Case
Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold

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

INVESTIGATION OF CHILD ABUSE IS A DISCRETIONARY ACT, CITY CAN NOT BE SUED FOR... FINDING THAT LIQUOR LICENSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS NOT SUPPORTED...