A New York appellate court has upheld a ruling that allows a personal injury case against Pearl Court Properties, LLC to proceed. The case involves a plaintiff, Evagelos Sakkas, who claims he sustained injuries after tripping on uneven pavers in a tree well near the property owned by Pearl Court Properties. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies property owner liability regarding injuries that occur in tree wells.

The ruling came from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on June 17, 2026. The court affirmed an earlier decision made by the Supreme Court in Kings County, which denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. This means that the case will continue to be heard in court, allowing Sakkas to pursue his claims against the property owner.

Background

The dispute began when Evagelos Sakkas filed a lawsuit against Pearl Court Properties, LLC, and another party after he tripped and fell on uneven pavers in August 2022. The incident took place in a tree well adjacent to the property owned by Pearl Court. Sakkas claimed that the uneven pavers were a dangerous condition that led to his injuries.

Pearl Court Properties, LLC, sought to dismiss the case by filing a motion for summary judgment. They argued that they should not be held liable for Sakkas' injuries because they did not maintain the tree well or install the pavers. The property manager for Pearl Court submitted an affidavit supporting this claim, stating that the company had no responsibility for the area where the accident occurred.

Despite the defendant's arguments, the Supreme Court of Kings County denied the motion for summary judgment on August 7, 2024. The court determined that the case should proceed, as the facts surrounding the incident were not fully developed, and depositions had not yet been conducted.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The judges involved in the ruling included Colleen D. Duffy, Paul Wooten, Laurence L. Love, and Phillip Hom. They agreed that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was premature, stating, "A conclusory affidavit or an affidavit by an individual without personal knowledge of the facts does not establish the proponent's prima facie burden on a motion for summary judgment."

The court emphasized that the property manager's affidavit did not sufficiently demonstrate that Pearl Court Properties did not create the dangerous condition. The judges noted that since depositions had not been conducted, relevant information about the creation of the dangerous condition may be solely within the defendant's knowledge.

As a result, the court affirmed the earlier ruling, allowing Sakkas' case to continue. The judges concluded that the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for summary judgment.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for property owners in New York. It clarifies that property owners can be held liable for injuries that occur in tree wells if they have created or contributed to a dangerous condition. The decision also highlights the necessity for property owners to provide sufficient evidence when seeking to dismiss personal injury claims through summary judgment.

The court's ruling reinforces the principle that liability may only be imposed on property owners if they have affirmatively created a dangerous condition or have acted negligently in maintaining the area. This case could set a precedent for similar future cases involving injuries related to tree wells and property maintenance.

What's Next

As the case continues, Sakkas will have the opportunity to gather more evidence and present his claims in court. Pearl Court Properties may still seek to appeal the decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence how property owners manage their premises in relation to public safety.