PETROWSKI v. ABRAHAM (1999)

 Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.   Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on ice on the public sidewalk in front of defendant's building.   Absent proof that defendant created the dangerous condition or used the sidewalk for a special purpose that resulted in plaintiff's injury, liability may not be imposed upon defendant, as the abutting owner, for the dangerous condition of the sidewalk (see, O'Shea v. Ilion Main St. Corp., 227 A.D.2d 989, 643 N.Y.S.2d 447, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 814, 651 N.Y.S.2d 16, 673 N.E.2d 1243;  Reid v. Auto Tune Ctrs., 202 A.D.2d 1047, 609 N.Y.S.2d 715) regardless of whether the description in his deed encompasses the sidewalk (see, Farnsworth v. Village of Potsdam, 228 A.D.2d 79, 83, 651 N.Y.S.2d 748).   Nor can defendant be held liable by virtue of the ordinances cited by plaintiff in opposition to the motion (see, Roark v. Hunting, 24 N.Y.2d 470, 475, 301 N.Y.S.2d 59, 248 N.E.2d 896;  Appio v. City of Albany, 144 A.D.2d 869, 870, 534 N.Y.S.2d 811).   Further, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was injured on a private walkway owned by defendant, we conclude that defendant established his entitlement to summary judgment on the alternative ground that “[a] landowner is not responsible for a failure to remove snow and ice until a reasonable time has elapsed after cessation of the storm” (Cerra v. Perk Dev., 197 A.D.2d 851, 602 N.Y.S.2d 277;  accord, Fusco v. Stewart's Ice Cream Co., 203 A.D.2d 667, 668, 610 N.Y.S.2d 642).

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: