Opinion
2002-03423
Submitted January 23, 2003.
February 18, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered March 6, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Marble Hall Apartments, Inc., and Empire State Management which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
O'Keeffe Lindgren, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Thomas K. Lindgren of counsel), for appellant.
Susan B. Owens, Valhalla, N.Y. (Paul L. Neugebauer of counsel), for respondents.
Melito Adolfsen, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Louis G. Adolfsen and Francis A. Garufi of counsel), for defendant Marion Scott Real Estate, Inc.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The owner of land abutting a public sidewalk owes no duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition (see Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452-453; Lattanzi v. Richmond Bagels, 291 A.D.2d 434; Reinoso v. City of New York, 288 A.D.2d 455; Ritts v. Teslenko, 276 A.D.2d 768). However, an abutting landowner may be held liable, inter alia, for creating a hazardous condition on the sidewalk (see Hausser v. Giunta, supra; Calcaterra v. Home Fed. Sav. Bank, 294 A.D.2d 324; Reinoso v. City of New York, supra; Leggio v. County of Nassau, 281 A.D.2d 518, 518-519; Ritts v. Teslenko, supra).
The defendants Marble Hall Apartments, Inc., and Empire State Management made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that they did not create the defect that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.