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.
Glenna DAVIDSON et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The SHUBERT ORGANIZATION, INC. et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.) entered January 25, 2023, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendant 267–269 West 45th Street, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a raised section of a concrete sidewalk outside defendant's building. Plaintiff testified that she fell when her feet came in contact with something, but she did not know what it was. Her husband testified that shortly before plaintiff's accident, he was looking at billboards; he looked down to see what happened only after plaintiff “lurched forward,” at which time he saw her foot drag across a lump in the ground. In his affidavit he averred that he saw his wife's left foot strike and catch on the concrete.
Contrary to the motion court's finding, plaintiffs established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the husband's testimony and affidavit, which established that plaintiff tripped on a raised portion of the sidewalk. Nevertheless, in opposition, defendant raised triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment by correctly determining that, as to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7–210, the experts' affidavits conflicted as to whether defendant created the raised portion of the concrete, whether it was defective, and whether any alleged defect was the proximate cause of plaintiff's fall (see Gilmartin v. City of New York, 81 A.D.3d 411, 915 N.Y.S.2d 556 [1st Dept. 2011]).
The court correctly rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants violated Administrative Code § 19–152(a) and New York City Department of Transportation Highway Rules (34 RCNY) §§ 2–09(f)(1) and (5), which, in relevant part, hold property owners responsible for any tripping hazards that were caused by a vertical grade differential between adjacent sidewalk flags that is greater than or equal to one half inch.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 999
Decided: November 14, 2023
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)