At page 475 Granting summary judgment for lack of duty to maintain unpaved path6 citing casesdated August 20, 1997, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.…
- Barzola v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).publishedThe defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by showing that the retaining wall where the plaintiff was injured was not intended for pedestrian traffic, and that the alleg…
- Belo-Osagie v. Starrett City Ass'n, 41 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedThe defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they had no duty to clear snow and ice from the subject unpaved path where the plaintiff allegedly fell (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 2…
- Moran v. State Duct Corp., 41 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedThe movants were entitled to summary judgment as they had no duty to maintain free of debris and snow an unpaved area that was not intended to be a public walkway (see Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474, 475 [1998]).
- Carthans v. Grenadier Realty Corp., 38 A.D.3d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedAssn., 297 AD2d 425, 425 [2002]; cf. Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474, 475 [1998]).
- Drake v. Sagbolt, LLC, 112 A.D.3d 1132 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013).published Assn., 297 AD2d 425, 425-426 [2002]; see also Carthans v Grenadier Realty Corp., 38 AD3d 489, 489 [2007]; compare Rosenbloom v City of New York, 254 AD2d 474, 475 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 803 [1999]).
Other citing cases
- Cuce v. Bell Atl. Corp., 299 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2002).published
- Maldonado v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 58 A.D.3d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
v.
City of New York
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York and Long Island Rail Road separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.),[*475] dated August 20, 1997, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the defendants’ motions are granted, and the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained when, on the morning of January 12, 1994, she slipped and fell on ice on a dirt pathway that transected a grassy island near the Bayside Long Island Rail Road station in Queens. The dirt pathway on which the plaintiff fell was not a public walkway, but rather had been created by the habitual traffic of pedestrians hastening to and from their commuter trains.
The defendants established that the portion of the grassy island on which the plaintiff fell was owned entirely by the defendant Long Island Rail Road. Accordingly, the defendant City of New York is entitled to summary judgment, since it did not own, occupy, control, or make any special use of the land on which the plaintiff fell (see, e.g., Elbert v J.F.V. Enter. Co., 234 AD2d 413; Minott v City of New York, 230 AD2d 719; Turrisi v Ponderosa, Inc., 179 AD2d 956, 957-958; Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp., 139 AD2d 292, 296-297).
The defendant Long Island Rail Road is also entitled to summary judgment, as it had no duty to clear snow and ice from an unpaved area that was not intended to be a public walkway, particularly when nearby sidewalks provided an adequate means of access to and from the railroad station (see, e.g., Garcia v New York City Hous. Auth., 234 AD2d 102; Palmer v Prescott, 208 AD2d 1065; Bacon v Mussaw, 167 AD2d 741). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.