D'Ambrosio v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
55 N.Y.2d 454, 450 N.Y.S.2d 149, 435 N.E.2d 366 (1982)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
D’Ambrosio (plaintiff) was injured when she tripped on a metal disk that protruded from a public sidewalk owned by the City of New York (city) (defendant). The disk covered the housing for a valve serving an abutting building; a previous owner of the building had installed the valve. D’Ambrosio tripped over the disk while attempting to avoid cracks in the sidewalk. D’Ambrosio sued the city, alleging that the city breached its duty to keep the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The city then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Harriet Hopp (defendant), the building’s owner, seeking payment from Hopp for any money D’Ambrosio would be awarded against the city. The city’s contribution claim was based on the special-benefit rule, pursuant to which a municipality may hold an abutting landowner liable for an unsafe sidewalk if the unsafe condition was due to a sidewalk installation constructed for the special use and benefit of the landowner’s property. The jury awarded D’Ambrosio $100,000 in damages after finding the city and Hopp both negligent. In a second stage of the trial, the jury found that the city was 65 percent responsible and Hopp 35 percent responsible for D’Ambrosio’s injuries. The civil court denied the city’s motion for judgment over Hopp, after which the civil court issued judgment against the city for $65,000. The appellate division reversed. Hopp appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gabrielli, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.