▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court agreed with the trial court. It ruled that MABID failed to prove it had not taken over the City's full responsibility for sidewalk safety. Because there were still unresolved questions of fact about how much control MABID had, the case could not be dismissed early. The court explained that a company can sometimes be sued by outside parties if its contract effectively replaced someone else's duty to maintain a property. Since MABID didn't clearly show this wasn't the case, the lawsuit against it was allowed to continue.
In August 2014, Mercedes Vidal tripped and fell on an uneven part of a public sidewalk on Myrtle Avenue in Queens. The sidewalk was next to a plaza owned by the City of New York. A group called the Myrtle Avenue Business Improvement District, or MABID, had a contract with the City to provide maintenance services in that area. Vidal and her husband sued both the City and MABID, claiming they failed to keep the sidewalk safe. MABID asked the court to dismiss the case against it, arguing it shouldn't be held responsible. The trial court said no, and MABID appealed that decision.
The main question was whether MABID could be sued by someone who wasn't part of its contract with the City. Normally, a contract only creates duties between the parties who signed it. But courts have said an exception exists if the contractor completely took over the other party's job of keeping a place safe. The court had to decide if MABID's maintenance contract went that far.
This case shows that companies hired for maintenance work can sometimes face lawsuits from people they never contracted with. If a company's job basically replaces the property owner's safety duties, it may share legal responsibility for accidents. This ruling reminds contractors and municipalities to clearly define maintenance duties in their agreements.
Talk to a licensed personal injury lawyer in New York.