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.
Evelyn A. CARTER, respondent, v. 73 CRANBERRY STREET, INC., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants 73 Cranberry Street, Inc., and John S. Ansted appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated August 20, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
“To hold an abutting landowner liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk, the landowner must have either created the defect, caused it to occur by special use, or breached a specific ordinance or statute which obligates the owner to maintain the sidewalk” (Jeanty v. Benin, 1 A.D.3d 566, 567, 767 N.Y.S.2d 447; see Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452-453, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470; Roman v. City of New York, 6 A.D.3d 691, 775 N.Y.S.2d 163; Devine v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 532, 533, 751 N.Y.S.2d 605).
The plaintiff tripped and fell on a loose bluestone sidewalk flag that allegedly became dislodged due to the installation of a vertical rolling metal gate on the appellants' premises. No violation of a statute or ordinance is alleged. Moreover, even assuming that the gate constituted a special use of the sidewalk, after the appellants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the gate created the defect which caused her to fall (see Roman v. City of New York, supra; Lee v. City of New York, 307 A.D.2d 256, 257, 762 N.Y.S.2d 269; Ivanyushkina v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 544, 545, 752 N.Y.S.2d 693; cf. Tate v. Freeport Union School Dist., 7 A.D.3d 695, 777 N.Y.S.2d 188; Vyadro v. City of New York, 2 A.D.3d 519, 767 N.Y.S.2d 871).
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: May 31, 2005
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)