Camacho v City of New York
2012 NY Slip Op 04709 [96 AD3d 795]
June 13, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


Norma Camacho et al., Respondents,
v
City of New York,Defendant, and Herbert E. Weber et al., Appellants.

[*1]Rebore, Thorpe & Pisarello, P.C., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Timothy J. Dunn III and MichelleRusso of counsel), for appellants.

Raphaelson & Levine Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jared Glugeth of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Herbert E. Weberand Jamie Nesbitt Weber appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.),dated August 8, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendantsHerbert E. Weber and Jamie Nesbitt Weber for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them is granted.

The injured plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a sidewalk flag which was raised on oneside at the expansion joint. There was a tree located near the site of the alleged defect.

Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes tort liabilityupon the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk for any injury to property or personalinjury proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonablysafe condition (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210; Martinez v Khaimov, 74 AD3d1031 [2010]). Here, the defendants Herbert Weber and Jamie Nesbitt Weber (hereinaftertogether the appellants) established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawby submitting, inter alia, a survey of their property line, which showed that the portion of thesidewalk which contained the alleged defect did not abut their property (see Montalbano v 136 W. 80 St. CP, 84AD3d 600 [2011]; De Garcia vEmpire Fasteners, Inc., 57 AD3d 710 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raisea triable issue of fact.

In light of our determination, we need not address the merits of the appellants' remainingcontention. Angiolillo, J.P., Eng, Lott and Austin, 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.