Plaintiff sues defendant for injuries alleged to have been sustained on August 6, 2021, on a sidewalk in front of defendant's property in the City of Mechanicville. Plaintiff contends that the sidewalk was uneven, and that one concrete slab was raised above an adjacent slab to a degree, causing Plaintiff to trip and fall. Defendants now move for summary judgment contending that, among other things, the Code of the City of Mechanicville does not impose liability on abutting landowners for personal injuries caused by sidewalk defects.

In support of their motion, Defendants submit a copy of the Code of the City of Mechanicville, which provides, in part, as follows:

§164-13. Maintenance.

It shall in all cases be the duty of the owner of every lot or piece of land in the City of Mechanicville to keep the sidewalks adjoining his lot or piece of land in good repair and to remove and clean away all snow and ice and other obstructions from such sidewalk.

The Code further provides:

§164-14 Dangerous conditions.

It shall be unlawful for any property owner to allow his sidewalks to be left in a broken, slippery, or otherwise dangerous condition, and it shall be the duty of every property owner to keep his/her sidewalks in repair and free from any and all slippery or otherwise dangerous substances.

The Code further provides:

§164-15 Construction material; compliance with order.

...

B. Whenever in the opinion of the Commissioner of Public Works a sidewalk or part [*2]thereof in the City of Mechanicville is, for want of repair or deem [sic] to be unsafe, or not in proper repair, thereby endangers life or safety, he/she shall have the authority to order the owner as reflected on the tax rolls of the City of Mechanicville to put the same in a safe condition within such reasonable time as may be determined by the order of the Commissioner.

§164-16. Penalties for offenses.

Any person(s) or entity upon whom a notice has been served who fails, neglects, or refuses to place such sidewalk or part in a safe condition as designated in such notice or shall violate any of the provisions of this Article or orders given pursuant to this chapter shall upon conviction be subject to a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) or to imprisonment for no more than fifteen (15) days, or to both such fine and imprisonment...

Critically here, the Code of the City of Mechanicville does not impose liability on an abutting landowner for defective conditions on the sidewalk abutting their property. Defendant contends that since the code of the City of Mechanicville contains no such provision, Plaintiff's claim is barred as a matter of law.

Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a result of negligent maintenance or the existence of dangerous and defective conditions on public sidewalks is placed on a municipality and not the abutting landowner (see e.g. Pardi v. Barone, 257 AD2d 42 [3d Dept 1999]). There are, however, circumstances under which this general rule is inapplicable, and the abutting landowner will be held liable. For example, liability of abutting landowners will generally be imposed when the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner, when the abutting owner affirmatively caused the defect, or when the abutting landowner negligently constructed or repaired the sidewalk. Absent these circumstances, liability will attach only if a local ordinance or statute charges an abutting landowner with a duty to maintain and repair the sidewalks and the ordinance specifically imposes liability for injuries resulting from the breach of that duty (Hausser v. Giunta, 88 NY2nd 449, 453 [1996]).

In this case, there is no evidence that the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for this owner's benefit. There is no evidence that the homeowner affirmatively caused the defect or otherwise negligently constructed or repaired it. Plaintiff relies solely upon the word "unlawful" contained in the City of Mechanicville Code at §164-14, which Plaintiff argues must be construed in such a manner as to impose liability on Defendants. Plaintiff argues that to do otherwise would frustrate the meaning of the statute and render it meaningless. The Court disagrees.

A thorough review of the relevant provisions of the Code of the City of Mechanicville concerning streets and sidewalks evidences no intention by the City of Mechanicville to shift its common-law civil liability from itself to adjacent landowners. Indeed, there is no mention of civil liability whatsoever within Article 4 of the Code. Rather, for defects deemed to be unsafe by the Commissioner for which a landowner is notified, a provision is made for an order compelling the condition to be repaired and subjecting the landowner to a fine of not more than $250 or to imprisonment for no more than fifteen days or both. Contrary to the arguments of [*3]counsel for the Plaintiff, therefore, the use of the word "unlawful" in the context of the statute means nothing more than potentially being liable for a fine or fifteen days imprisonment. There is no ambiguity. The statute is clear. Although the Code certainly imposes a duty, without the concomitant imposition of liability, Defendant's motion for summary judgment must be granted (Farnsworth v. Village of Potsdam, 228 AD2d 79 [3d Dept 1997]).

In light of the foregoing, the balance of the Defendants' argument in favor of summary judgment needs not be addressed and it is hereby

ORDERED that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and the Complaint is hereby dismissed.

Notice of Motion; Statement of Material Facts; Affirmation of Laura B. Gardiner, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Memorandum of Law; Affirmation in Opposition of William J. Keniry, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Statement of Material Facts; Memorandum of Law in Opposition; Reply Affirmation of Grace E. Tesmer, Esq.; Response to Statement of Material Facts.