From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Furey v. Sayville Union Free Sch. Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 2007
36 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2005-06267.

January 9, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by a stipulation dated March 17, 2006, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered June 2, 2005, as, upon an order of the same court dated February 28, 2005 granting the motion of the defendant Sayville Union Free School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, is in favor of that defendant and against the plaintiffs.

Fallon and Fallon, LLP, Sayville, N.Y. (James V. Fallon, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (Ross P. Masler of counsel), for respondent Sayville Union Free School District.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Santucci and Krausman, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Constance Furey alleged that she tripped and fell over a 1½-inch height differential between two slabs of a public sidewalk in front of a school building owned by the defendant Sayville Union Free School District (hereinafter the School District). "As a general rule, a landowner will not be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk abutting its premises, unless the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the landowner, or the landowner affirmatively caused the defect or negligently constructed repaired the sidewalk" ( Rendon v Castle Realty, 28 AD3d 532; see Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449; Cordova v Vinueza, 20 AD3d 445).

The School District met its initial burden in support of motion for summary judgment by demonstrating that it neither possessed any records of work having been done on the sidewalk during a reasonable period of time preceding the accident nor otherwise created the alleged defect ( see Rendon v Castle Realty, supra; Capobianco v Mari, 267 AD2d 191; Rosales v City of New York, 221 AD2d 329). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the School District caused the defect through negligent construction or repair the sidewalk, or through a special use ( see Montalvo v Heege, 301 AD2d 427).

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the School District's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.


Summaries of

Furey v. Sayville Union Free Sch. Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 2007
36 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Furey v. Sayville Union Free Sch. Dist

Case Details

Full title:CONSTANCE R. FUREY et al., Appellants, v. SAYVILLE UNION FREE SCHOOL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 9, 2007

Citations

36 A.D.3d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 115
828 N.Y.S.2d 168

Citing Cases

Whitfield v. City of New York

Of perhaps greater significance for present purposes are recent Second Department decisions on motions for…

Sedgh v. Gramercy Chapels Inc.

There is no dispute the Village enacted a prior written notice law covering the subject defect. Moreover, the…