Hausser v. Giunta

Decision Date02 May 1996
Citation88 N.Y.2d 449,646 N.Y.S.2d 490,669 N.E.2d 470
Parties, 669 N.E.2d 470 Mary HAUSSER et al., Appellants, v. Salvatore GIUNTA, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

SMITH, Judge.

The issue presented by this personal injury action is whether Municipal Home Rule Law § 11(1)(j) renders invalid section 256 of the City of Long Beach Code, which makes a landowner with property abutting city sidewalks liable for injuries caused by defects in the sidewalk. We conclude that Long Beach Code § 256 is not invalidated by the Municipal Home Rule Law and reverse the order of the Appellate Division.

Appellants Mary and Henry Hausser live next door to respondent Salvatore Giunta in the City of Long Beach. Portions of a city sidewalk abut the property in front of both houses. In 1989, appellants commenced this action for personal injury against respondents Salvatore and Theresa 1 Giunta seeking to recover for injuries appellant Mary Hausser sustained after she tripped over a broken, cracked or depressed portion of the sidewalk abutting the front of respondent's property. 2 Appellant sustained serious injuries to her knee which required surgery. By notice of motion dated February 1, 1993, respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Rooney v. City of Long Beach, 42 A.D.2d 34, 345 N.Y.S.2d 66, section 11(1)(j) of the Municipal Home Rule Law invalidated section 256 of the City Code. By notice of motion dated March 31, 1993, appellants opposed respondent's motion, and cross-moved for summary judgment. 3

Supreme Court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding that respondent neither created the defect nor caused the defective condition due to special use, and respondent was not clothed with liability by a statute or ordinance. The court concluded that the facts of this case were controlled by Rooney v. City of Long Beach, 42 A.D.2d 34, 345 N.Y.S.2d 66, appeal dismissed 33 N.Y.2d 897, 352 N.Y.S.2d 449, 307 N.E.2d 564, supra. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the City of Long Beach Code § 256 was invalidated by the 1960 amendment to City Home Rule Law § 11(1) (now Municipal Home Rule Law § 11[1][j] ).

Under the powers granted within section 11(1) of the former City Home Rule Law (which granted power to local governments to adopt local laws and charters), the City of Long Beach, in 1931, adopted section 256 of the City of Long Beach Charter, transferring liability from the municipality to abutting landowners and clothing landowners with liability for injuries caused by defective sidewalks. It provides:

"The owner or occupant of lands fronting or abutting on any street, highway, traveled road, public lane, alley or square, shall make, maintain and repair the sidewalk adjoining his lands and shall keep such sidewalk and the gutter free and clear of and from snow, ice and all other obstructions. Such owner or occupant and each of them, shall be liable for any injury or damage by reason of omission, failure or negligence to make, maintain or repair such sidewalk."

Section 11(1) of the former City Home Rule Law was amended in 1960 to prohibit municipalities from transferring liability to property owners. The amendment provided that "no city shall have the power to adopt local laws transferring to abutting property owners its liability for failure to maintain its sidewalks and gutters in a reasonably safe condition" (L.1960, ch. 1080). The effect of this amendment was to eliminate the powers of cities to adopt local laws, similar to Long Beach City Code § 256, transferring its liability to abutting property owners.

In 1963, the Legislature repealed the City Home Rule Law. Within the same year, the Legislature enacted the Municipal Home Rule Law (L.1963, ch. 843) which replaced the repealed City Home Rule Law. The 1960 amendment to the former City Home Rule Law, prohibiting cities from transferring liability to abutting property owners for failure to maintain sidewalks, was not incorporated into the amended Municipal Home Rule Law. Section 11(1)(j) of the Municipal Home Rule Law provides:

"1. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, the legislative body shall not be deemed authorized by this chapter to adopt a local law which supersedes a state statute, if such local law: * * *

"j. In the case of a city, transfers to abutting property owners its liability for failure to maintain its sidewalks and gutters in a reasonably safe condition." (Emphasis added.)

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of or the existence of dangerous and defective conditions to public sidewalks is placed on the municipality and not the abutting landowner (City of Rochester v. Campbell, 123 N.Y. 405, 25 N.E. 937; Roark v. Hunting, 24 N.Y.2d 470, 475, 301 N.Y.S.2d 59, 248 N.E.2d 896). There are, however, circumstances under which this general rule is inapplicable and the abutting landowner will be held liable. Liability to abutting landowners will generally be imposed where the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner (Clifford v. Dam, 81 N.Y. 52), where the abutting owner affirmatively caused the defect (Colson v. Wood Realty Co., 39 A.D.2d 511, 512, 337 N.Y.S.2d 487), where the abutting landowner negligently constructed or repaired the sidewalk (id.) and where a local ordinance or statute specifically charges an abutting landowner with a duty to maintain and repair the sidewalks and imposes liability for injuries resulting from the breach of that duty (Willis v. Parker, 225 N.Y. 159, 121 N.E. 810).

In Rooney v. City of Long Beach (supra) the Appellate Division concluded that Municipal Home Rule Law § 11(1)(j) invalidated section 256 of the Long Beach City Code and precluded a city from transferring its liability to abutting landowners. Appellant Rooney sustained injuries when she tripped over a curb stop (water valve) which was 2 1/2 inches above...

To continue reading

Request your trial
140 cases
  • Williams v. Kfc Nat. Management Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 9, 2004
    ...maintained public sidewalks lies, if at all, with the municipality, not the adjacent landowner. Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452-53, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470 (1996). However, exceptions exist, and an abutting owner will be presumed to have constructive knowledge of dangerous co......
  • Capretto v. City of Buffalo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 2, 2015
    ...and repair the sidewalks and imposes liability for injuries resulting from the breach of that duty" ( Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452–453, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470 ; see Guadagno v. City of Niagara Falls, 38 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 832 N.Y.S.2d 732 ; Rader v. Walton, 21 A.D.3d 1409......
  • Scuteri v. 7318 13th Ave. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 27, 2016
    ...in a safe condition. See, Wright v. Blumberg, 100 A.D.3d 745, 954 N.Y.S.2d 147 [2nd Dept.2012] ; Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 453, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470 [1996] ; Hevia v. Smithtown Auto Body of Long Is., Ltd., 91 A.D.3d 822, 822–823, 937 N.Y.S.2d 284 [2nd Dept.2012] ; Reyder......
  • Christian v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • May 9, 2012
    ...condition, or (3) the landowner caused the defect to occur because of some special use of the sidewalk. Hausser v. Giunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 453, 646 N.Y.S.2d 490, 669 N.E.2d 470 (1996); Petrillo v. Town of Hempstead, 85 A.D.3d 996, 997, 925 N.Y.S.2d 660 (2d Dep't 2011); Romano v. Leger, 72 A.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • A Guide To Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 11, 2021
    ...the abutting landowner created the tripping hazard somehow (by way of special use, a negligent repair, or otherwise). Hausser v. Gunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452-453 (1996): Farmer v. City of New York, 25 A.D.3d 649, 649 (2d Dept. 2006); Nichilo v. B.F.N. Realty Associates, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 666, 66......
  • A Guide To Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 11, 2021
    ...the abutting landowner created the tripping hazard somehow (by way of special use, a negligent repair, or otherwise). Hausser v. Gunta, 88 N.Y.2d 449, 452-453 (1996): Farmer v. City of New York, 25 A.D.3d 649, 649 (2d Dept. 2006); Nichilo v. B.F.N. Realty Associates, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 666, 66......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT