CITY OF NEW YORK, NOT BUILDING OWNER, RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY IN TREE PIT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Case: Vellios v. Green Apple
Date: May 31, 2011
From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn Queens Bronx; Brooklyn Queens accident injury lawyer)
Comment: Let's get this straight once and for all, people. A tree well or tree pit is a cut-out in the sidewalk, found all over New York City's boroughs - Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, etc. - where trees are planted. Now, repeat after me. "Tree well are owned by the City of New York, not the owner of the adjacent house or building." Unless the homeowner does something special to make the tree well more dangerous, such as putting up a little fence or placing some slippery bricks down, the homeowner or building owner is not liable or responsible if there is an accident.
For cases like the one discussed below, I blame lawyer stupidity. This accident happened in Brooklyn. The accident victim-plaintiff caught the front wheels of his walker in a tree well. Are they kidding? I must say, cases like this give us accident and injury lawyers a bad name. Really. And they waste the judges' time.
RELATED POSTS:
BIKE RIDER THROWN BECAUSE OF TREE WELL CAN'T SUE CITY WITHOUT "PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE" (Posted by Brooklyn Queens accident injury lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on June 8, 2011)
INJURED WHEN STAIRS COLLAPSE, ACCIDENT VICTIM CAN'T SUE: NO NOTICE OF DEFECT (Posted by Brooklyn Queens accident injury lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on May 6, 2011)
FORGET THE DANGERS OF TEXTING WHILE DRIVING; HOW ABOUT TEXTING WHILE WALKING? (Posted by Brooklyn Queens accident injury lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on December 18, 2009)
BROOKLYN SIDEWALK IS ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN (Posted by Brooklyn Queens accident injury lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on March 31, 2010)
TREE LIMB IN N.Y.C.'S CENTRAL PARK FALLS SUDDENLY AND KILLS BABY, INJURES MOTHER (Posted by Brooklyn Queens accident injury lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on June 27, 2010)
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated October 16, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendants Carmine Pellone and Rosemary Pellone, and the cross motion of the defendant Green Apple, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
On June 23, 2006, the plaintiff was walking with the aid of a walker when the front wheels of that walker went into a tree well and he lost his balance and fell, allegedly sustaining injuries. The accident occurred in front of premises located on Kings Highway in Brooklyn, which was owned by the defendants Carmine Pellone and Rosemary Pellone (hereinafter the Pellones) and occupied by the defendant Green Apple (hereinafter Green Apple), a commercial tenant.
In support of their motion and cross motion for summary judgment, the Pellones and Green Apple, respectively, established their prima facie entitlements to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they had no duty to maintain the tree well, which is owned by the City of New York (see Vucetovic v. Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 517, 860 N.Y.S.2d 429, 890 N.E.2d 191; see also Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion and cross motion for summary judgment.
