You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE PEDESTRIANS HAD A SAFE PASSAGEWAY; PLAINTIFFS WERE STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN THEY WALKED IN THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WAS BLOCKED; THE THEORY OF LIABILITY APPEARS TO STEM FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION UPON A PUBLIC STREET OR SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant contractor, CSI, was responsible for providing a safe alternative passageway while construction work blocked the sidewalk. Plaintiffs were struck by a car when they attempted to walk in the street. The CSI was hired by the general construction manager hired by Taco Bell, the owner of the premises:

“A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk” … . Here, CSI failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as its submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the dangerous condition alleged to have caused the accident. Byrd v Hughes, 2020 NY Slip Op 06741, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

You might also like
Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408
ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A REBUILD OF A FIRE-DAMAGED, NON-CONFORMING HOME.
DEFENDANT ASSERTED SHE THOUGHT PLAINTIFF’S CAR WOULD GO THROUGH THE YELLOW LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT RAN INTO THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHEN IT CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP, DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​
INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 2ND DEPT.
JUDGE’S IMPROPER COMMENTS CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES.
MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED THE RESIDENCE AS HAVING TWO ENTRANCE DOORS, ONE LEADING TO THE AREA WHERE THE INFORMANT SAW THE FIREARMS AND ONE LEADING TO A STAIRWAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR (WHICH THE INFORMANT HAD NOT VISITED), THE WARRANT WAS NOT SEVERABLE AND WAS THEREFORE OVERBROAD (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

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THE CREDIT CARD BILLING STATEMENTS AND THE... PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT;...