From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivers v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 2009
63 A.D.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-06286.

June 16, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, "Nicklette Searles and Samuel Searles" appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated April 30, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Robert T. Tusa (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellants.

Edelman, Krasin Jaye, PLLC, Carle Place, N.Y. (Justin Varughese of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for defendants-respondents.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when a large tree branch fell and struck her on the head, as she was walking along the sidewalk between 203 and 205 Essex Street in Brooklyn. At the time of the occurrence, the house located at 205 Essex Street was owned by Nicklette Samuel Searles, sued herein as "Nicklette Searles and Samuel Searles" (hereinafter Searles).

"The law imposes a duty to maintain property free and clear of dangerous or defective conditions only upon those who own, occupy, or control property, or who put the property to a special use or derive a special benefit from it" ( Guzov v Manor Lodge Holding Corp., 13 AD3d 482, 483). Searles established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that she neither owned the tree nor exercised any control over it. In opposition, the plaintiff and the defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Parks and Recreation failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563). Accordingly, Searles' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her should have been granted.


Summaries of

Rivers v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 2009
63 A.D.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Rivers v. City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:SONYA RIVERS, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, and…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 5102
880 N.Y.S.2d 545

Citing Cases

Yauch v. Cnty. of Nassau

The County also demonstrated, through the affidavit of William Nimmo, that it did not own, maintain, manage,…

Riccardi v. Cnty. of Suffolk

The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted Argyros's motion. “ ‘The law imposes a duty to…