WEBB v. Charles Price, et al., respondents. (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chereé A. Buggs, J.), dated December 12, 2023.  The amended order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Charles Price and Lena Price which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants Charles Price and Lena Price.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk condition abutting a one-family residential property (hereinafter the premises) owned by the defendant Lena Price, who resided at the premises, and her son, the defendant Charles Price (hereinafter together the Price defendants).  The plaintiff commenced this action against the Price defendants and the defendant City of New York to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained.  In an amended order dated December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the Price defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.  The plaintiff appeals.

“An abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty” (Petrillo v. Town of Hempstead, 85 A.D.3d 996, 997, 925 N.Y.S.2d 660;  see Giuntini v. City of New York, 226 A.D.3d 651, 652, 208 N.Y.S.3d 276).  Here, the Price defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that they did not create the uneven condition by negligently repairing the abutting sidewalk (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).  According to Lena Price, who had resided at the premises since the 1960s, the roots of a tree abutting the sidewalk had previously caused the sidewalk to become uneven, and, after the sidewalk had been repaired approximately two years prior to the plaintiff's fall, the roots of the tree had caused the sidewalk to become uneven again.  “An abutting landowner is not responsible for damage caused to a sidewalk by the roots of a tree” (Simmons v. Guthrie, 304 A.D.2d 819, 820, 757 N.Y.S.2d 873;  see Missirlakis v. McCarthy, 145 A.D.3d 772, 773, 43 N.Y.S.3d 465).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Price defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

GENOVESI, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.