Opinion
05-15-2024
Antonia CAMPOS, respondent, v. Patria COLON, et al., appellants.
The Gold Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore, NY (Karen C. Higgins of counsel), for appellants. Feldman, Kronfeld & Beatty (Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, NY [Jeffrey A. Berson], of counsel), for respondent.
The Gold Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore, NY (Karen C. Higgins of counsel), for appellants.
Feldman, Kronfeld & Beatty (Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, NY [Jeffrey A. Berson], of counsel), for respondent.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LARA J. GENOVESI, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.), dated January 19, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk defect abutting the defendants’ property. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. In an order dated January 19, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants appeal.
[1, 2] "[L]andowner[s] [have] a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [their] own property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances" (Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown, 2 N.Y.3d 633, 636, 781 N.Y.S.2d 249, 814 N.E.2d 419), and "certain landowners of real property ‘abutting any sidewalk’ in the City of New York have a duty to maintain a sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition" (Siyunova v. 5420 Mgt. Corp., 203 A.D.3d 975, 976, 161 N.Y.S.3d 851, quoting Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7–210[b]). However, landowners generally owe no duty to warn or to protect others from a defective or dangerous condition on "neighboring premises" (Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown, 2 N.Y.3d at 636, 781 N.Y.S.2d 249, 814 N.E.2d 419; see Dalpiaz v. McGuire, 176 A.D.3d 779, 780, 107 N.Y.S.3d 890) and have "no duty to maintain a sidewalk, under the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which does not abut [their] premises" (Siyunova v. 5420 Mgt. Corp., 203 A.D.3d at 976, 161 N.Y.S.3d 851).
[3] Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 895, 883 N.Y.S.2d 53), the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, in support of their cross-motion, that the sidewalk defect on which the plaintiff tripped and fell was not located on a portion of the sidewalk that abutted their property or that the plaintiff did not know where she tripped (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court properly denied their cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. ar., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, GENOVESI and LOVE, JJ., concur.