Due to the volume of pedestrian traffic, New York City property owners are held to a heightened duty to keep their properties free of defective and dangerous conditions.  In addition to common law considerations, no fewer than three NYC Administrative Code Sections (§7-210, §16-123 and §19-152) establish a non-delegable duty of property owners to maintain sidewalks abutting their property in a safe condition.

However, not every abnormality or defect on a City sidewalk is actionable.  In Firtell v. 173-175 East 91Realty Corp., the plaintiff sued a property owner after allegedly tripping on the raised metal frame of a sidewalk cellar door in front of the building.  She moved for summary judgment against the property owner on §7-210 grounds.

The court reviewed plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographs of the alleged defect.  The court found the photographs showed that the height differential between the raised metal frame of the sidewalk cellar door and the sidwalk was “trivial” and insufficient to establish a defective or dangerous condition as a matter of law.  The size, dimensions and appearance of the raised cellar door were all a factor but the court also emphasized that the plaintiff’s incident occurred on a beautiful day in broad daylight to support its decision.

Despite the high standard of care that exists, property owners defending premises liability claims can benefit from strong photographic evidence and plaintiff’s testimony regarding the weather and lighting conditions at the time of the incident to defeat summary judgment motions.

Thanks to Jim Rogers for his contribution to this post. If you have any questions, please email Paul at