Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Margulies v. Frank
Citations: 228 A.D.2d 965; 644 N.Y.2d 596; 644 N.Y.S.2d 596; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7272
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 20, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
Defendants Jacob Frank, Leah Frank, Yehuda Frank, and Gila Frank own a property on State Route 306 in Ramapo, Rockland County, which they lease to Hatzlacha Clothing and Needlecraft, Inc. The property includes a parking lot adjacent to a sidewalk constructed by the State in 1990, which is elevated compared to the parking lot, creating a height differential. Following complaints from the defendants, the State's contractor added a macadam mound to reduce the drop-off from the sidewalk. On January 1, 1992, plaintiff Mirium Margulies parked her car in the lot and, upon returning, fell after stepping on the mound, resulting in a broken leg. Margulies and her husband initiated a negligence lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that the mound constituted a dangerous condition. The defendants sought summary judgment, presenting a survey indicating that the sidewalk and mound were on State property. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to this appeal. The plaintiffs did not challenge the surveyor's findings and needed to prove that the defendants either created the hazardous condition, violated a maintenance statute, or used the sidewalk for a special purpose to succeed in their claim. The court found no evidence that the defendants created the condition or failed to meet a maintenance obligation. Regarding the special use doctrine, it applies when a property owner benefits from an installation on a public street or sidewalk that is unrelated to public use. The court determined that the macadam mound was not installed for the exclusive benefit of the defendants but was intended to address the safety issue caused by the height differential. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, with costs awarded.