You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE WELL DEFECT, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city (NYC) did not demonstrate there was no question of fact whether plaintiff tripped over a portion of the sidewalk (for which the city would not be liable) or a tree well (for which the city would be liable):

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, absent certain exceptions not relevant to this case … . 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” … . Antonyuk v Brightwater Towers Condo Homeowners’ Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00619, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE WELL DEFECT, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE WELL DEFECT, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TREE WELLS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE WELL DEFECT, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE WELL DEFECT, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
IN MOVING TO VACATE A MORE THAN $2 MILLION DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS MED MAL CASE, DEFENDANT DOCTOR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SHE WAS EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS; A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE RESENTENCING, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH STANDING; PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT; OUT OF STATE AFFIDAVIT LACKED A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY; NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS WAIVED IF NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, IT MAY BE ADDED TO AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT).
NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD.
THE PETITION SEEKING EMAILS AND RECIPIENT LISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM FROM THE VILLAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUEST COULD NOT BE GRANTED WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL, THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT UNTIMELY (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

COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM;... EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE...