LATTANZI v. RICHMOND BAGELS INC (2002)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated October 26, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

 The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a piece of fruit on the sidewalk in front of the premises occupied by the defendant, sustaining personal injuries.

 The owner or the lessee of land abutting a public sidewalk owes no duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition (see, Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452-453, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470;  Reinoso v. City of New York, 288 A.D.2d 455, 733 N.Y.S.2d 130;  Ritts v. Teslenko, 276 A.D.2d 768, 715 N.Y.S.2d 418).   An abutting landowner or lessee may not be held liable for a hazardous condition on the sidewalk unless it created the condition or caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or unless a statute or ordinance places the obligation to maintain the sidewalk upon it (see, Gaynor v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 733, 687 N.Y.S.2d 421;  McGee v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 483, 675 N.Y.S.2d 130;  Surowiec v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 727, 728, 527 N.Y.S.2d 478).

There is no evidence that the defendant created the allegedly hazardous condition on the sidewalk, that the allegedly hazardous condition occurred because of the defendant's special use of the sidewalk, or that a statute or ordinance imposed an obligation on the defendant to maintain the abutting sidewalk.   Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted.