Opinion
12359 Index No. 311227/11 Case No. 2019-3990
11-12-2020
Luis A. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, 641 West 230th, L.L.C. et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Budin, Reisman, Kupferberg & Bernstein, LLP, New York (Gregory C. McMahon of counsel), for appellant. Caitlin Robin & Associates, PLLC, New York (Meredith B. Lander of counsel), for respondents.
Budin, Reisman, Kupferberg & Bernstein, LLP, New York (Gregory C. McMahon of counsel), for appellant.
Caitlin Robin & Associates, PLLC, New York (Meredith B. Lander of counsel), for respondents.
Kapnick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about March 26, 2019, which granted the motion of defendants 641 West 230th, L.L.C. and Riverdale Nursing Home, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell in the public street adjacent to defendants' nursing home. The City of New York is responsible for repair and maintenance of the public roadway (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7–201[a], [c] ), and defendants did not make any special use of the roadway or derive any special benefit therefrom in a way that would permit the imposition of a maintenance obligation on them (see Granville v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 195, 627 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 1995] ). The nursing home abutted the street, but no special structure or instrumentality was "installed at their behest or for their benefit" that would give rise to an obligation to maintain or repair the public street ( Kaufman v. Silver, 90 N.Y.2d 204, 207, 659 N.Y.S.2d 250, 681 N.E.2d 417 [1997] ; Balsam v. Delma Eng'g Corp., 139 A.D.2d 292, 298, 532 N.Y.S.2d 105 [1st Dept. 1988], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 73 N.Y.2d 783, 536 N.Y.S.2d 741, 533 N.E.2d 671 [1988] ). The fact that nursing home visitors walked across the road to reach the front entrance does not constitute a special use of the road for the benefit of the nursing home (see Hernandez v. Ortiz, 165 A.D.3d 559, 560, 86 N.Y.S.3d 42 [1st Dept. 2018] ; compare Llanos v. Stark, 151 A.D.3d 836, 57 N.Y.S.3d 502 [2d Dept. 2017] ).