| Lanhan v City of New York |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00222 [69 AD3d 678] |
| January 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Chris Lanhan, Respondent, v City of New York et al.,Respondents, and Coyle Properties, Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric H. Green, New York, N.Y. (Marc D. Citrin and Marc Gertler of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Coyle Properties, Inc.,appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), datedJanuary 14, 2009, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint andcross claims insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to theplaintiff-respondent.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he stepped into a hole in a curb and/or a sidewalk,abutting the business property of the defendant Coyle Properties, Inc. (hereinafter Coyle). Theplaintiff alleged, in his notice of claim and bill of particulars, that the defective condition whichcaused his fall was located on a "sidewalk/curb." Coyle moved for summary judgment on theground that the defect was on the curb, and not on the sidewalk.
Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 (a) states that "[i]t shall be theduty of the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk, including, but not limited to, theintersection quadrant for corner property, to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safecondition."
Coyle failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissingthe complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it, as it offered no evidence todemonstrate that the defect which allegedly caused the plaintiff's fall was located exclusively onthe curb, rather than on the sidewalk abutting his property (see Zuckerman v City of NewYork, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Coyle's reference to the plaintiff's deposition testimony inwhich he occasionally used the word "curb" to describe where he fell cannot serve to negate histestimony that the location was the "sidewalk/curb." Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlydenied Coyle's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofaras asserted against it.[*2]
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiff'sremaining contentions. Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.