From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amado v. Friedland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 1998
251 A.D.2d 57 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).


Plaintiff's alleged injuries resulted from a slip and fall in a pothole on a public sidewalk abutting the Friedland defendants' property. Defendants' property manager established that defendants were not responsible for sidewalk maintenance or repair, which was the responsibility of tenants. Since the abutting owner as a matter of law does not owe a general duty to the public to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition ( Nuesi v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 370), and these defendants did not cause the defect ( cf., Granville v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 195, 197) nor make special use of the sidewalk ( cf., supra), there is no lawful basis to impose liability on them.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Amado v. Friedland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 1998
251 A.D.2d 57 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Amado v. Friedland

Case Details

Full title:FRANCISCO AMADO, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE FRIEDLAND et al., Appellants, et…

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

Date published: Jun 9, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 57 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 31

Citing Cases

Sanza v. City of New York

At the time of the plaintiff's accident, the duty to maintain the public sidewalk where plaintiff fell did…

Acosta v. City of New York

Supreme Court denied the motion, finding issues of fact as to whether ORCAA's repair of the sidewalk caused…