Same case, 441 NYS 2d 834 (1981). Defendants Franco and Buonocore appealed the City's successful motion for summary judgment; the order was modified. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, held the City had a duty to maintain sidewalks in reasonably safe condition for all foreseeable users and that the boy was lawfully riding on the sidewalk. From this opinion: "The city apparently concedes on this appeal that it owes a duty of reasonable care to such ordinary and foreseeable users as those who walk ..., skip, jump, hop ..., pedal a tricycle ..., and roller skate ... upon a public sidewalk. We see no valid reason to distinguish between such users and an infant riding his bicycle on the sidewalk near his home. Nor are we persuaded that the distinction should be maintained solely on the strength of prior case law. ... This is especially so where the result required by precedent is 'found to be analytically unacceptable, and, more important, out of step with the times and the reasonable expectations of members of society' (id.). Moreover, the broad principles announced in [a previous case] simply will not permit the continuation of outmoded and rigid distinctions between foreseeable users of public sidewalks--distinctions which no longer have any vitality or rational basis."
Same case, 453 NYS 2d 427 (1982). The decision from the Appellate Division was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New York with the question certified answered in the affirmative.
Disclaimer