Carbone v. Pathrose

3 Citing cases

  1. Betances v. 700 West 176th St. Realty Corp.

    250 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 5 times

    We agree with the motion court that plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence tending to show that her path was directed toward the hole in the sidewalk because of the clothing rack allegedly placed on the sidewalk by defendant lessee, and that her claim based on a special use of the sidewalk is therefore without merit ( compare, Curtis v. City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 432, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 753, with MacLeod v. Pete's Tavern, 87 N.Y.2d 912). We also agree with the motion court that plaintiff failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants ever undertook to repair the alleged hole, and that her claim for negligent repair is therefore without merit ( see, Palazzo v. City of New Rochelle, 236 A.D.2d 528, 529; Carbone v. Pathrose, 236 A.D.2d 352). Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

  2. Bachman v. Town of North Hempstead

    245 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 17 times
    Finding that the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an affidavit by one of the landowners indicating, inter alia, that neither she nor her husband ever repaired the sidewalk or hired anyone else to repair the sidewalk

    No statute or ordinance imposes liability on the abutting landowners, the defendants Thomas Russo and Pamela Russo, in this case. Moreover, they made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an affidavit by Pamela Russo in which she indicated that neither she nor her husband ever repaired the sidewalk, that they never hired anyone to make repairs to the sidewalk, and that they do not maintain any special use of the sidewalk in the area where the plaintiff alleged she had fallen ( see, Figueroa v. City of New York, supra, at 373; Rosales v. City of New York, supra, at 329; see also, Carbone v. Pathrose, 236 A.D.2d 352). We find no merit to the plaintiff's remaining contentions.

  3. Redner v. 37 7th Avenue Tenants Corp.

    243 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

    The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion, and we now affirm. In the absence of an ordinance or statute imposing liability, an abutting landowner may only be held liable for a defective or dangerous condition on a public sidewalk if the landowner created the condition or caused it to occur because of some special use ( see, Carbone v. Pathrose, 236 A.D.2d 352; Gianna v. Town of Islip, 230 A.D.2d 824). Here, however, the plaintiff's speculative assertion that the leaves upon which he slipped came from the defendant's trees is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant created a dangerous condition on the abutting public sidewalk.