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.
Lance BREGER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent, Marvin Hellman, et al., Appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Marvin Hellman and Rozi Hellman appeal, and the defendant MMJ Contracting separately appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated April 4, 2001, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff tripped and fell on a piece of concrete on the sidewalk abutting property owned by the defendants Marvin Hellman and Rozi Hellman (hereinafter the Hellmans). The defendant MMJ Contracting (hereinafter MMJ) was performing construction on the Hellmans' property.
It is well settled that abutting landowners are liable for a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owners either created the defective condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation on them to maintain the sidewalk and expressly makes them liable for injuries caused by breach of that duty (see Meyer v. Guinta, 262 A.D.2d 463, 692 N.Y.S.2d 159). Furthermore, use of the sidewalk as a driveway may constitute a special use (see Cela v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 286 A.D.2d 640, 730 N.Y.S.2d 323; Waldron v. City of New York, 260 A.D.2d 471, 688 N.Y.S.2d 219). The evidence indicates that MMJ may have been using the area of the sidewalk where the plaintiff tripped as a driveway into the construction site. The Hellmans and MMJ did not meet their burden of establishing that they did nothing to either create the defective condition or cause the condition through a special use of the sidewalk (see Packer v. City of New York, 282 A.D.2d 587, 723 N.Y.S.2d 378; Caturano v. City of New York, 224 A.D.2d 202, 637 N.Y.S.2d 140; cf. Aversano v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 437, 696 N.Y.S.2d 233). Thus, summary judgment was not warranted.
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: September 30, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)