| Ascencio v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07686 [77 AD3d 592] |
| October 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Charlie Ascencio, Respondent, v New York City HousingAuthority, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
—[*1] Schachter & Levine, LLP, Brooklyn (Nicole N. Sinclair of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about November10, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant-appellant NewYork City Housing Authority's (NYCHA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint asasserted against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and thecomplaint dismissed as against NYCHA. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he slipped on a sidewalk that was abutting propertyowned by NYCHA. He alleged negligence in failing to maintain the "sidewalk/curb area."
NYCHA met its burden on summary judgment with a prima facie showing establishing as a matterof law that plaintiff did not slip on the sidewalk, but rather, on "the curb in between the street and thesidewalk" or "the edge of the sidewalk," and that it neither created the defect or made special use of thecurb (see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs,Inc., 10 NY3d 517 [2008]). Because Administrative Code of the City of New York §7-210 only requires that NYCHA maintain sidewalks abutting its property, and Administrative Code§ 19-101 (d) defines "[s]idewalk" as "that portion of a street between the curb lines, or thelateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines, but not including the curb, intendedfor the use of pedestrians" (emphasis added), NYCHA was not obligated to maintain the curb (see Garris v City of New York, 65 AD3d953 [2009]; Fernandez v HighbridgeRealty Assoc., 49 AD3d 318, 319 [2008]). The affidavits of the Superintendent andSupervisor of Grounds for the premises, stating that neither employee knew of any repairs made byNYCHA to the curb, or any special use of the curb by NYCHA, sufficiently showed entitlement tosummary judgment (see Rubin v City of New York, 258 AD2d 371, 372 [1999]). Nothing inthe record suggests that NYCHA created the defect or made a special use of the curb.Concur—Saxe, J.P., Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.