Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that defendant violated its duty under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 to maintain the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition by failing to repair the raised sidewalk flag on which plaintiff tripped. Plaintiff established that defendant had actual knowledge of the defective condition by submitting the deposition testimony of defendant's superintendent, who testified that he first saw the height differential between the sidewalk flags about two years before plaintiff fell.
Plaintiff established the location of the raised sidewalk flag by drawing a circle on the photograph marked at his deposition and testifying that the circle encompassed the exact location where he fell. Plaintiff also established that the height of the raised sidewalk constituted a tripping hazard by submitting his investigator's affidavit that he went to the accident location about 12 days after plaintiff fell and took photographs that fairly and accurately show the sidewalk's condition. Those photographs show that there was a vertical grade differential between the adjacent sidewalk flags of at least one inch, which constitutes a tripping hazard under Administrative Code § 19-152(a)(4) and the Rules of City of New York Department of Transportation (34 RCNY) § 2-09(f)(5)(iv). In opposition, defendant submitted no evidence that raised a triable issue of fact as to where plaintiff fell or regarding the height differential between the sidewalk flags.
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.
Volquez v. Bronx 2120 Crotona Ave., L.P., NY Slip Op 01072 (1st Dep't February 25, 2025)
