Vellios v Green Apple
2011 NY Slip Op 04660 [84 AD3d 1356]
May 31, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 6, 2011


Dimitrios A. Vellios, Appellant,
v
Green Apple et al.,Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[*1]William Pager, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Gannon, Rosenfarb & Moskowitz, New York, N.Y. (Jason B. Rosenfarb of counsel), forrespondent Green Apple.

James R. Pieret, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael E. Forde of counsel), for respondents CarminePellone and Rosemary Pellone.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated October 16, 2009, which granted themotion of the defendants Carmine Pellone and Rosemary Pellone, and the cross motion of thedefendant Green Apple, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearingseparately and filing separate briefs.

On June 23, 2006, the plaintiff was walking with the aid of a walker when the front wheels ofthat walker went into a tree well and he lost his balance and fell, allegedly sustaining injuries.The accident occurred in front of premises located on Kings Highway in Brooklyn, which wasowned by the defendants Carmine Pellone and Rosemary Pellone (hereinafter the Pellones) andoccupied by the defendant Green Apple (hereinafter Green Apple), a commercial tenant.

In support of their motion and cross motion for summary judgment, the Pellones and GreenApple, respectively, established their prima facie entitlements to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that they had no duty to maintain the tree well, which is owned by the City of NewYork (see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517 [2008]; see also Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion and cross motion for [*2]summary judgment. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Roman, JJ.,concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.