From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gaynor v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1999
259 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 29, 1999

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a hole in the sidewalk which was adjacent to a building owned by the respondent. The law is well established that an abutting landowner will not be liable to a pedestrian passing by on a public sidewalk unless, insofar as is relevant here, the landowner created the defective condition or caused the defect to occur because of some special use ( see, Vallejo v. Yorkshire Apts., 236 A.D.2d 464; Surowiec v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 727). The respondent's papers in support of his motion for summary judgment established that he did not create the defective condition or cause the hole because of some special use. Since the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]) on either issue, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion.

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gaynor v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1999
259 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Gaynor v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA GAYNOR, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and RONALD…

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

Date published: Mar 29, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 421

Citing Cases

Skolnik v. City of New York

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion…

Saleeby v. City of N.Y.

Prior to the enactment of the Sidewalk Law the standard was that "an abutting landowner will not be liable to…