From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Camacho v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2012
96 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-13

Norma CAMACHO, et al., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant, Herbert E. Weber, et al., appellants.

Rebore, Thorpe & Pisarello, P.C., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Timothy J. Dunn III and Michelle Russo of counsel), for appellants. Raphaelson & Levine Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jared Glugeth of counsel), for respondents.



Rebore, Thorpe & Pisarello, P.C., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Timothy J. Dunn III and Michelle Russo of counsel), for appellants. Raphaelson & Levine Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jared Glugeth of counsel), for respondents.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Herbert E. Weber and Jamie Nesbitt Weber appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated August 8, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Herbert E. Weber and Jamie Nesbitt Weber for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The injured plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a sidewalk flag which was raised on one side at the expansion joint. There was a tree located near the site of the alleged defect.

Section 7–210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes tort liability upon the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk for any injury to property or personal injury proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition ( see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 7–210; Martinez v. Khaimov, 74 A.D.3d 1031, 906 N.Y.S.2d 274). Here, the defendants Herbert Weber and Jamie Nesbitt Weber (hereinafter together the appellants) established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a survey of their property line, which showed that the portion of the sidewalk which contained the alleged defect did not abut their property ( see Montalbano v. 136 W. 80 St. CP, 84 A.D.3d 600, 923 N.Y.S.2d 489;De Garcia v. Empire Fasteners, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 710, 871 N.Y.S.2d 217). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not address the merits of the appellants' remaining contention.


Summaries of

Camacho v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2012
96 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Camacho v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Norma CAMACHO, et al., respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 13, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
946 N.Y.S.2d 597
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4709

Citing Cases

Stoloyvitskaya v. Dennis Boardwalk, LLC

The boardwalk at issue did not abut a roadway, and Dennis established, prima facie, that the subject…

Sangaray v. West River Associates, LLC

afted onto section 7–210 a “location requirement,” such that if the defect upon which a person trips abuts a…