From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pich v. Krupp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 29, 2000.

May 15, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated April 23, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Frank V. Merlino, Garden City, N.Y. (David Holmes of counsel), for appellants.

Tinari, Paar, O'Connell Osborn, LLP, Commack, N.Y. (James S. Paar of counsel), for respondents.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff Eileen Pich was injured when she tripped and fell on a public sidewalk abutting premises owned by the defendants. It is well settled that an abutting landowner will be liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk only when the owner either created the condition or caused the defect to occur because of a special use, or when a statute or ordinance places an obligation to maintain the sidewalk on the owner and expressly makes the owner liable for injuries caused by a breach of that duty (see, Meyer v. Guinta, 262 A.D.2d 463; Winberry v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 618). The plaintiffs made no claim of a special use or a breach of any statute or ordinance. In support of the motion, the defendants made a prima facie showing that they did not create the alleged defect in the sidewalk. The plaintiffs' assertion in opposition to the motion that the defendants made the defective condition more hazardous by concealing it was based on little more than speculation. Thus, summary judgment should have been granted dismissing the complaint (see, Lodato v. Town of Oyster Bay, 68 A.D.2d 904).

BRACKEN, J.P., JOY, THOMPSON, GOLDSTEIN and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pich v. Krupp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 15, 2000
272 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Pich v. Krupp

Case Details

Full title:EILEEN PICH, et al., respondents, v. LARRY KRUPP, et al., appellants

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

Date published: May 15, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 459 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 338

Citing Cases

Peron v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. "An abutting landowner will not be liable to a pedestrian who…

Marable v. City of New Rochelle

The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment. An abutting landowner is not…