Sehnert v New York City Tr. Auth.
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 3, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter, JJ.
7546 117950/06
[*1]Barbara Sehnert, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants,
v
The New York City Transit Authority, et al., Defendants, City of New York, Defendant-Respondent, Broadway Tenth Property LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants. [And a Third Party Action]
Hodgson Russ, LLP, New York (Margaret M. Cmielewski of
counsel), for appellants.
The Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm, LLP, New York (Leslie D.
Kelmachter of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald
E. Sternberg of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 24, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as against defendant City of New York, denied defendants Broadway Tenth Property LLC and Ernest Realty Associates, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and granted the City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Barbara Sehnert allegedly sustained injuries after exiting a bus and tripping and falling over a piece of metal protruding from the sidewalk. Plaintiffs contend that the piece of metal was a broken signpost that the City installed and removed. However, as they concede, they submitted no evidence that established that the piece of metal was a sign or signpost installed or removed by the City and thus failed to show that the City caused or created the alleged sidewalk defect. Nor did they show that the City had prior written notice of the alleged defect (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201[c][2]).
Defendants Broadway Tenth and Ernest Realty, as the owners of property abutting the public sidewalk, may be held liable in negligence for injuries resulting from sidewalk defects (see Administrative Code § 7-210[a]; § 19-101[d]; Early v Hilton Hotels Corp., 73 AD3d 559 [2010]; Lockard v Sopolsky, 82 AD3d 657 [2011]). The cases on which defendants rely in [*2]support of their argument to the contrary involve accidents that occurred before September 2003, the effective date of Administrative Code § 7-210(a) (see Early, 73 AD3d at 560).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 3, 2012
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.