284 A.D.2d 378 725 N.Y.S.2d 897

Hope Marable, Respondent, v City of New Rochelle et al., Defendants, and Salvatore J. Orifici, Appellant.

[725 NYS2d 897]

—In an action to recover damages for personal *379injuries, the defendant Salvatore J. Orifici appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 22, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell on a public sidewalk abutting premises owned by the appellant and located within the City of New Rochelle.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. An abutting landowner is not hable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk unless the landowner, inter alia, caused the defect to occur because of some special use of the sidewalk (see, Kaufman v Silver, 90 NY2d 204, 207; Winberry v City of New York, 257 AD2d 618). The plaintiffs opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the appellant’s prima facie showing that he did not make special use of the sidewalk (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Pick v Krupp, 272 AD2d 459; Waldron v City of New York, 260 AD2d 471; Winberry v City of New York, supra). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Marable v. City of New Rochelle
284 A.D.2d 378 725 N.Y.S.2d 897

Case Details

Name
Marable v. City of New Rochelle
Decision Date
Jun 11, 2001
Citations

284 A.D.2d 378

725 N.Y.S.2d 897

Jurisdiction
New York

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!