O'Toole v. City of YonkersO'Toole v. City of Yonkers
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 27, 2012, is dismissed, as the portion of the order appealed from was superseded by the order dated April 17, 2012, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated April 17, 2012, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, upon reargument, the determination in the order dated February 27, 2012, denying those branches of the motion of the defendant/third-party defendant North Broadway Phones, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the eighth cause of action in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it is vacated and, thereupon, those branches of the motion of the defendant/third-party defendant North Broadway Phones, Inc., are granted; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant/third-party defendant North Broadway Phones, Inc.
An owner or occupier of land which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition (see Berkowitz v Spring Cr., Inc., 56 AD3d 594, 595 [2008]), and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where “the abutting owner or lessee ‘either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the owner or lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon that party for injuries caused by a violation of that duty‘” (id. at 595-596, quoting Lowenthal v Theodore H. Heidrich Realty Corp., 304 AD2d 725, 726 [2003]). To recover from a tenant which occupies premises abutting a sidewalk under the theory that the tenant has a special use of the sidewalk, the tenant must be in exclusive possession and control of the alleged special-use area (see Beda v City of New York, 4 AD3d 317, 318 [2004]), and the plaintiff must demonstrate that the special use caused the defective condition which proximately caused his or her injuries (see Loiaconi v Village of Tarrytown, 36 AD3d 864, 866 [2007]; Hughes v City of New York, 304 AD2d 618, 619 [2003]; Blum v City of New York, 267 AD2d 341, 342 [1999]). North Broadway established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing, inter alia, that it nei
Accordingly, upon reargument, the court should have granted those branches of North Broadway‘s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the eighth cause of action in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Rivera, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.