Legal Opinion
Hinkley v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 18, 1996PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*666The plaintiff allegedly fell and sustained personal injuries as a result of a defective sidewalk near the boundary adjoining the properties of the appellant and the defendant Tennes I. Erstad. Upon the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court held that there were issues of fact concerning the precise location of the allegedly defective condition in relation to the property line. We disagree.
The law is well settled that an abutting landowner will not be liable for injuries sustained by a pedestrian passing on a public sidewalk unless a statute or ordinance expressly obligates…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Surowiec v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Bloch v. PotterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Gaboff v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Landau v. Town of RamapoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Mendoza v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by7 opinions
- Capobianco v. MariAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Loforese v. Cadillac Fairview Shopping Centers, U.S. Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Cahill v. Foodland Deli of L.I., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Charlip v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Muhlon v. Surf Operating Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.