NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
September 24, 2009
REBECCA GARRIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JOSEPH ORBACH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered December 18, 2008, which denied the motion of defendants Joseph Orbach and Sidney Orbach and/or Lighthouse 37, LLC (collectively "Lighthouse") for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as to said defendants. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse, Freedman, JJ.
Lighthouse met its burden on summary judgment with a prima facie showing establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff did not trip on the sidewalk, but rather on a "gap" between the metal portion of the curb and the concrete portion of the curb, and that Lighthouse neither caused nor created the defect involved in plaintiff's accident (see Miller v City of New York, 253 AD2d 394, 395-396 ). Since Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-101(d) defines sidewalk as "that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines, but not including the curb, intended for the use of pedestrians" (emphasis added), the Lighthouse defendants were not obligated to maintain the curb and are not liable to plaintiff (see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517  [tree well]; Ortiz v City of New York, __ AD3d __, 2009 NY Slip Op 6299  [pedestrian ramp]; Fernandez v Highbridge Realty Assocs., 49 AD3d 318  [multiple-flight stairway running between two avenues]). The certified transcript of plaintiff's § 50-h examination was properly submitted by Lighthouse, as an admission, in support of its motion (see Morchik v Trinity School, 257 AD2d 534, 536 ; Claypool v City of New York, 267 AD2d 33, 35 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.