Lattanzi v. Richmond Bagels, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Portanova v. Dynasty Meat Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Brown v. 324 Livingston Footwears, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2003)
- Berkowitz v. Spring Creek, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Popowa v. Neck Road One Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Castro v. Marble Hall Apartments, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Lowenthal v. Theodore H. Heidrich Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Skolnik v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated October 26, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The injured plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a piece of fruit on the sidewalk in front of the premises occupied by the defendant, sustaining personal injuries.
The owner or the lessee of land abutting a public sidewalk owes no duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition (see, Hausser v Giunta, 88 NY2d 449, 452-453; Reinoso v City of New York, 288 AD2d 455; Ritts v Teslenko, 276 AD2d 768). An abutting landowner or lessee may not be held liable for a hazardous condition on the sidewalk unless it created the condition or caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or unless a statute or ordinance places the obligation to maintain the sidewalk upon it (see, Gaynor v City of New York, 259 AD2d 733; McGee v City of New York, 252 AD2d 483; Surowiec v City of New York, 139 AD2d 727, 728).
There is no evidence that the defendant created the allegedly hazardous condition on the sidewalk, that the allegedly hazardous condition occurred because of the defendant’s special use of the sidewalk, or that a statute or ordinance imposed an obligation on the defendant to maintain the abutting sidewalk. Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.