Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Juan GIL, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. 75-89 ASSOCIATES, et al., Defendants-Appellants, The City of New York, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2000, which denied the motion of defendants 75-89 Associates and Leonard Amsterdam for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 8, 2000, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants' motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly held that a triable factual issue existed as to whether defendants-appellants, the owner and manager of a residential building abutting an allegedly defective and dangerous sidewalk, may be held legally responsible for the condition of that sidewalk. The record raises a triable issue as to whether defendants created or contributed to the complained of sidewalk hazard (Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 453, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470; Jameer v. Fine Fare Express, Inc., 279 A.D.2d 256, 719 N.Y.S.2d 36).
Defendants' additional argument, that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue as to whether any negligence on their part proximately caused the infant plaintiff's accident, was also properly rejected. A triable factual question has been raised by the infant plaintiff's mother's allegation that after she and her son exited a parked car, they were forced, due to the unpassable condition of the sidewalk abutting defendants' property, to walk along the adjoining dangerous roadway, where the infant plaintiff was struck by a vehicle. Neither the conduct of the infant plaintiff's mother in electing to alight from a vehicle parked next to the subject sidewalk, nor the offending driver's actions, are superseding causes of the infant plaintiff's harm as a matter of law, and since the very purpose of a sidewalk is to provide safe passage along a roadway, the defective sidewalk did not merely furnish the occasion for the happening of the accident (see, Jameer v Fine Fare Express, Inc., supra ).
We have reviewed appellants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 04, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)