Brandes v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst
| Decision Date | 07 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2003-07255. |
| Parties | MARY BRANDES, Appellant, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LINDENHURST, Defendant, and DELLAFRANCA and HESSE REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.
On April 1, 2000, the plaintiff tripped and fell over the irregular, mud-covered surface of the public sidewalk adjacent to 317 South Wellwood Avenue in the Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst. The plaintiff brought this action against, inter alia, the defendant Dellafranca and Hesse Realty Corporation (hereinafter the defendant), the owner of the abutting property. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the negligence of the defendant in the maintenance, care, and management of the property, the sidewalk was in a defective condition which caused her to trip, fall, and sustain personal injuries.
A landowner is not liable to a pedestrian injured by a defect in a public sidewalk abutting its premises unless the landowner (1) affirmatively created the defective condition, (2) negligently made repairs thereto, (3) created the defect through special use, or (4) violated a statute or ordinance which expressly imposes liability on it for failure to maintain and repair the sidewalk (see Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 452-453 [1996]; Devine v City of New York, 300 AD2d 532 [2002]).
The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based upon the affidavit of its president, Vincent Dellafranca, who averred, inter alia, that he did not observe any defects or conditions that he "believed required repairing" and that the defendant did not make special use of the sidewalk or change its condition (see Devine v City of New York, supra; Tiano v Nick's Lobster & Seafood Rest. & Clam Bar, 300 AD2d 469 [2002]). The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to produce sufficient evidentiary proof in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact (see Palone v City of New York, 5 AD3d 750 [2004]).
Viewing the photographs submitted by the plaintiff together with the deposition testimony of the parties in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolving all reasonable inferences in her favor, as we must (see Mitchell v Fiorini Landscape, 253 AD2d 860 [1998]), we cannot say that it would be unreasonable for a jury to infer, from a comparison of the condition of the sidewalk at the scene of the incident to the condition of the remainder of sidewalk,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Culinary Inst. of Am.
...from her testimony ( see Brown v. Outback Steakhouse, 39 A.D.3d 450, 451, 833 N.Y.S.2d 222;Brandes v. Incorporated Vil. of Lindenhurst, 8 A.D.3d 315, 316, 777 N.Y.S.2d 720;Nicklas v. Tedlen Realty Corp., 305 A.D.2d 385, 386, 759 N.Y.S.2d 171). Under the facts as testified to by the plaintif......
-
Covals v. Casey
...Negri v. Stop and Shop, 65 N.Y.2d 625, 491 N.Y.S.2d 151, 480 N.E.2d 740 ; Brandes v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst, 8 AD3d 315, 777 N.Y.S.2d 720 ). The Court therefore concludes that the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment (see Clark v. Chau Shing Wong......
-
Rabenou v. Village of Great Neck Plaza, Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 32969(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 9/12/2007), 9900-05.
...liability upon the abutting land owner it will not be held liable based upon a mere violation of the statute. See, Brandes v. Incorporated Village of Lindenhurst, 8 A.D.3d 315. Defendant Arbusman relies upon the deposition testimony of Danny Arbusman, defendant Arbusman's "owner." At his de......