Opinion
June 21, 1948.
Present — Peck, P.J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
It appears, or at least was sufficiently indicated to raise a jury question, that the sidewalk construction where plaintiff was injured was special construction for the special benefit of the abutting owner, which would make the present owner responsible for its maintenance ( Nickelsburg v. City of New York, 263 App. Div. 625). Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.