In Caesar v. The City of New York and Hakimi Hardware, New York County Index Number 160620/2016 the plaintiff claimed that she fell in a hole on the sidewalk in front of our client’s hardware store. However, plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the photographs plaintiff marked at her deposition established that she stepped into a hole on the curbstone and not the sidewalk. We argued that pursuant to Administrative Code §7-210 curbstones remain the responsibility of the City of New York and not the responsibility of the abutting property owner. Moreover, we argued that Hakimi is not the abutting property owner but a tenant pursuant to a lease. Additionally, we argued there was no evidence that Hakimi caused the alleged defect in the curbstone, made any repairs to the curbstone or made special use of the curbstone.
In opposition plaintiff attempted to raise an issue of fact regarding the location of the hole. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit claiming that she was confused at her deposition and testified incorrectly that the hole was on the curb, rather than the sidewalk. Plaintiff also cited to portions of plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which she testified that she fell onto the sidewalk.
In granting our client summary judgment the Court found that Mr. Weiner “identified this confusion and then distinctly asked plaintiff where the hole was located, which she testified was on the curb.”