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.
Diana TYREE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SENECA CENTER-HOME ATTENDANT PROGRAM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants, South Bronx Mental Health Council, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered February 4, 1998, which denied defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.
The occasional use of the sidewalk for deliveries does not constitute a special use. “ ‘Special use cases usually involve the installation of some object in the sidewalk or street or some variance in the construction thereof’ ” (Kaminer v. Supreme Supermarket/Key Food, 253 A.D.2d 657, 677 N.Y.S.2d 553 [citations omitted] ).
[T]he owner or occupier of land abutting a public sidewalk does not owe a duty to the public, solely arising from the location of the premises, to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition (Nuesi v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 370, 613 N.Y.S.2d 175). Rather, liability arises only if the abutting owner or lessee created the defect or used the sidewalk for a special purpose (Granville v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 195, 197, 627 N.Y.S.2d 4), such as when an appurtenance was installed for its benefit or at its request (Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204, 207, 659 N.Y.S.2d 250, 681 N.E.2d 417), contemplating a purpose different from that of the general public (Otero v. City of New York, 213 A.D.2d 339, 340, 624 N.Y.S.2d 157). Such special use then gives rise to maintenance responsibilities (Santorelli v. City of New York, 77 A.D.2d 825, 430 N.Y.S.2d 618).
(Thomas v. Triangle Realty Co., 255 A.D.2d 153, 679 N.Y.S.2d 394.)
Defendants' mere receipt of ordinary deliveries of office supplies does not suffice to show special use of the sidewalk by the appellant tenants sufficient to withstand the summary judgment motions. It makes no difference whether plaintiff tripped on a hole or slipped on leaves, nor whether she fell near the curb or closer to the loading dock, as in either event the second-floor tenants are not liable for her injuries under a special use theory of extended liability.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: April 27, 1999
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)