This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
In New York City, the owner of the building or lot that a sidewalk runs in front of (the “abutting” owner) must keep that sidewalk reasonably safe, but it may not be responsible for a fire hydrant on the sidewalk that it does not own, control, or maintain. Here, the Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a pedestrian’s claim against the abutting owner after his foot caught on a fire hydrant base, because the owner showed that the City was responsible for maintaining the hydrant.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 14, 2026
- Case
- Fung v Exxon Mobil Oil Corp.
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 05937
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that he was walking on a sidewalk abutting property owned by Bolla Em Realty, LLC, when his left foot caught on a fire hydrant base and he fell. He sued several defendants, including Bolla and the City of New York. Bolla moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the fire hydrant was under the City’s control. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted that part of Bolla’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.
The holding
The Second Department affirmed. While Administrative Code § 7-210(b) makes the abutting owner liable for personal injury “proximately caused by the failure of such owner to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition,” the statute “does not impose strict liability upon the property owner” (2026 NY Slip Op 05937, *1). Here, “Bolla established, prima facie, that the City was responsible for maintaining the fire hydrant that the plaintiff tripped on,” and that “it did not own, control, or make a special use of the fire hydrant, that it had no duty to maintain the fire hydrant, and that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident” (id.). The plaintiff raised no issue of fact, and the motion was not premature.
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Torres v Sander’s Furniture, Inc. (134 AD3d 803) and Fisher v City of New York (245 AD3d 892).
What it means
- In New York City, Administrative Code § 7-210 generally makes the abutting owner responsible for keeping the sidewalk reasonably safe, but the injured person must still prove negligence.
- Not everything on a sidewalk is the abutting owner’s responsibility. Here, the City maintained the hydrant, and the owner did not own, control, or make special use of it, or create the condition.
- When the City may be responsible, the deadlines are short. A personal injury action against a city generally cannot go forward unless a Notice of Claim was served as General Municipal Law § 50-e requires, generally “within 90 days after the claim arises,” and the action generally must be commenced within one year and 90 days (General Municipal Law § 50-i).
- The decision does not decide the claims against the City or the other defendants.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
We note that a sidewalk fall in New York City often raises a basic question at the start: who is responsible for the exact spot where the person fell? The abutting owner is a natural first place to look (see our post on slipping on wet leaves). But here the hazard was a fire hydrant base, and the owner showed that the City was responsible for maintaining it and that the owner had no duty to maintain it. In our view, just because something sits within the sidewalk does not make it part of the sidewalk the abutting owner must maintain. The Court of Appeals made a similar point about tree wells, the dirt areas around street trees, holding that “a tree well is not part of the ‘sidewalk’ for purposes of section 7-210” (Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517, 518-519 [2008]). The sidewalk and what stands on it are not always the same party’s responsibility. Two lessons follow. 1. After a sidewalk fall, take photographs that show exactly what caused the fall and where it is, and get legal advice promptly. 2. When the City may be responsible, a Notice of Claim generally must be served within 90 days, so the question of who is responsible should be answered early. On a sidewalk, the exact spot can decide who is responsible.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210(b). Result: affirmed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 14, 2026. Posted October 14, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.