What did the court decide?

The appeals court affirmed denial of the condominium board's summary judgment motion, meaning the case will proceed because factual questions remain about who is responsible for the trip hazard.

Who is affected by this decision?

The condominium board (388 West), the plaintiff Miguel Torres, and the neighboring property owner are affected because liability for the sidewalk condition remains unresolved.

What happens next in the case?

Because summary judgment was denied, the case can proceed toward trial or other pretrial resolution where evidence will be weighed to determine liability.

Why wasn't summary judgment granted to the board?

The court found disputed facts — notably that the board or a prior owner altered the sidewalk in 2002 creating an encroaching ramp — so the board did not eliminate the possibility it failed to maintain the sidewalk safely.

Can the board appeal again?

The board could seek further review if there is an appealable order or pursue other post-judgment remedies, but this decision affirms the denial of its summary judgment motion.

Torres v. Lenscrafters, Inc.

Docket Index No. 152840/17|Appeal No. 6415|Case No. 2024-05889|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 21, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02383
Docket numbers: Index No152840/17Appeal No6415Case No2024-05889

Appeal from an order denying defendant 388 West Broadway Condominium's summary judgment motion to dismiss a personal-injury complaint for a sidewalk trip-and-fall.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium (388 West) in a slip-and-fall suit by Miguel Torres. The court held that 388 West did not meet its initial burden to show it bore no liability for a trip hazard formed where its sidewalk and an adjacent sidewalk met. Evidence showed 388 West or a prior owner had altered the sidewalk in 2002, creating a sloped ramp that encroached on the neighbor’s sidewalk, and the record did not eliminate the possibility that 388 West failed to keep the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Issues Decided

Whether the condominium board established it had no liability for plaintiff's fall on a tripping hazard at the juncture between its sidewalk and a neighboring sidewalk.
Whether evidence that the board or a prior owner altered the sidewalk and created a slope that encroached on the neighbor's sidewalk forecloses the board's claim of nonliability.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied New York premises-liability law requiring a party moving for summary judgment to show it did not create or have responsibility for a dangerous condition on the sidewalk abutting its property. Because the record showed the board or a prior owner replaced the sidewalk in 2002 and created a slope or ramp encroaching on the neighbor's sidewalk, the board failed to eliminate the possibility it breached maintenance duties or was a proximate cause of the trip hazard. Those unresolved factual questions prevented summary judgment.

Authorities Cited

Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210
Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC26 NY3d 793 (2016)
Delgado v 5008 Broadway Assoc., LLC149 AD3d 583 (1st Dept 2017)
Jennings v City of New York243 AD3d 411 (1st Dept 2025)

Parties

Respondent: Miguel Torres
Defendant-Appellant: Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium
Defendant: Lenscrafters, Inc.
Respondent: 390 West Broadway, Inc.
Judge: Gerald Lebovits
Judge: Renwick, P.J.
Judge: Friedman
Judge: Gesmer
Judge: Pitt-Burke
Judge: Hagler

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-21
Trial court order date: 2022-08-11

What You Should Do Next

1
Prepare for trial
Defendants and plaintiff should complete fact discovery and preserve evidence about the 2002 sidewalk work, maintenance records, and witness testimony about the ramp and fall.
2
Consider dispositive strategy
Defendant 388 West may reassess its defenses, gather additional evidence eliminating its responsibility, or evaluate settlement options given the denial of summary judgment.
3
Consult counsel about appeals
Appellants should consult their attorneys to determine whether any interlocutory appeals or other procedural motions are available and appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appeals court affirmed denial of the condominium board's summary judgment motion, meaning the case will proceed because factual questions remain about who is responsible for the trip hazard.
Who is affected by this decision?: The condominium board (388 West), the plaintiff Miguel Torres, and the neighboring property owner are affected because liability for the sidewalk condition remains unresolved.
What happens next in the case?: Because summary judgment was denied, the case can proceed toward trial or other pretrial resolution where evidence will be weighed to determine liability.
Why wasn't summary judgment granted to the board?: The court found disputed facts — notably that the board or a prior owner altered the sidewalk in 2002 creating an encroaching ramp — so the board did not eliminate the possibility it failed to maintain the sidewalk safely.
Can the board appeal again?: The board could seek further review if there is an appealable order or pursue other post-judgment remedies, but this decision affirms the denial of its summary judgment motion.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Torres v Lenscrafters, Inc. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02383

Torres v Lenscrafters, Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 02383

April 21, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Miguel Torres, Respondent,

Lenscrafters, Inc., Defendant, 390 West Broadway, Inc., Defendant-Respondent, Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Decided and Entered: April 21, 2026

Index No. 152840/17|Appeal No. 6415|Case No. 2024-05889|

Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Hagler, JJ.

Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Nate Drexler of counsel), for appellants.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Joshua Block of counsel), for Miguel Torres, respondent.

Keane & Partners LLC, New York (Thomas F. Keane of counsel), for 390 West Broadway, Inc., respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered August 11, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium (388 West)'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that 388 West failed to establish its prima facie burden of showing that it bore no liability for plaintiff's fall over a tripping hazard between the sidewalk abutting 388 West's property and the sidewalk abutting a neighboring property (
see
Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210;
Sangaray v West Riv. Assoc., LLC
, 26 NY3d 793, 799-800 [2016];
Delgado v 5008 Broadway Assoc., LLC
, 149 AD3d 583, 583-584 [1st Dept 2017]). The record establishes that 388 West or the prior owner of its property replaced the sidewalk in front of its building in 2002. In order to address a height difference of potentially three inches between 388 West's sidewalk and its neighbor's sidewalk, a slope or ramp was created which encroached onto the neighbor's sidewalk. While 388 West submitted evidence establishing that plaintiff fell on a portion of the ramp located on its neighbor's property, it failed to offer evidence that eliminated the possibility that it did not comply with its duties to maintain the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition and that 388 West was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries by leaving a tripping hazard between the sidewalk abutting 388 West's property and the sidewalk abutting the neighboring property (
see Delgado,
149 AD3d at 583-584
; Jennings v City of New York
, 243 AD3d 411, 412 [1st Dept 2025]).

We have considered 388 West's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 21, 2026