SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
New York Significant Case Summaries
Landberg v. City of New York
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
2026 WL 1579730, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026)
Decided: June 3, 2026
Second Department Affirms Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Notice of Alleged Tree Well Defect
Background
A Kings County plaintiff initiated a personal injury lawsuit against a property owner and the City of New York after tripping and falling on a loose brick in the sidewalk abutting the property owner’s business. Specifically, the loose brick was in the tree well, not lying flat on the sidewalk ground. At the completion of discovery, the defendants separately moved for summary judgment, each to dismiss the complaint.
The property owner argued that it was not liable because New York Administrative Code § 7-210 only imposes the duty to maintain the sidewalk, not the City-owned tree wells. In its motion, the City argued that it lacked notice of the loose brick in the tree well and merely installed the bricks at some point prior to the incident. Additionally, the plaintiff’s testimony established that she was walking within the tree well, “on the very bricks installed specifically so that pedestrians will not walk too close to the trees.” (emphasis in original). Agreeing, the Supreme Court of Kings County dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.
Holding
In its June 3, 2026, decision, the Second Department agreed with the lower court, upholding the dismissal. The court reasoned that § 7-210 “does not impose civil liability on property owners for injuries that occur in city-owned tree wells,” only when the owner “affirmatively created the dangerous condition.” Additionally, § 7-201(c) limits the City’s potential liability to circumstances in which it has prior written notice. The City had no such notice in this case.
Questions about this case can be directed to Catherine Dirksen, at (646) 825-3721 or cdirksen@tthlaw.com.
Tavares-Vera v. County of Suffolk
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026)
Decided: July 22, 2026
Second Department Affirms Defendant-Town’s Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Personal Injury Complaint Against Snowplow Operator
Background
In a personal injury lawsuit, a Suffolk County plaintiff alleged that the Town of Babylon was negligent when its snowplow collided with his vehicle. At the time of the collision, the snowplow’s driver was actively plowing snow just off the roadway with his flashing hazard lights on. The plaintiff’s vehicle was in park in the seconds leading up to the incident.
The Defendant-Town moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the driver was operating a Town-owned hazard vehicle to work on a highway within the meaning of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) and not doing so recklessly, the complaint must be dismissed. In interpreting § 1103(b), the Town pointed to New York Court of Appeals decisions applying a “minimal recklessness” standard to shield “municipalities from simple negligence and mere errors in judgment.” Agreeing, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County granted the Town’s motion and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.
Holding
In its July 22, 2026, decision the Second Department agreed with the Town, upholding the dismissal. Citing earlier decisions, the court reasoned that “[a] snowplow operator ‘actually engaged in work on a highway’ is exempt from the rules of the road and may be held liable only for damages caused by an act done in ‘reckless disregard for the safety of others.’” This distinguishes municipal vehicular liability, especially in cases of hazard work, from simple motor vehicle negligence.
Questions about this case can be directed to Catherine Dirksen, at (646) 825-3721 or cdirksen@tthlaw.com.