In Grijalba v. Floro and Martins, decided June 3, the Appellate Division wrestled yet again with the question of legal responsibility for injuries received on sidewalks. Reviewing previous state Supreme Court decisions, the court iterated that residential property owners are generally free of liability, whereas commercial property owners are not — the rationale being that a commercial party is more likely to be able to bear the costs of liability than a private property owner.
The defendant in Grijalba had converted her owner-occupied, two-family residence into a basement owner-occupied, three-family house. The trial court granted her summary judgment. The Appellate Division remanded with an instruction to consider a number of factors to determine whether the property was residential or commercial, such as the nature of the ownership, whether it was owned for investment or business purposes, the predominant use of the property (including the amount of space occupied by the owner and whether the property was utilized in whole or meaningful part as a place of residence) and whether the premises were used to generate income.
