Plaintiff Gerard Rienzi, while an inspector for Union City, fell on the public sidewalk in front of the three family apartment building owned by defendant Vincent Giacoman. Plaintiff claimed to have suffered injuries when he fell in a hole in the sidewalk adjacent to Giacoman’s building. The issue in Rienzi v. Giacoman, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2036 (App. Div. Oct. 26, 2020) was whether defendant’s building should be considered to be commercial versus residential and, as such, whether the defendant had a duty to maintain the sidewalk.
Giacoman’s three family building was located in a neighborhood classified as commercial but his property was zoned as residential. At the time plaintiff fell, Giacoman and his brothers lived in the first floor apartment, while he rented the other two apartments to non-relatives. At deposition, Giacoman testified that the rental income he received barely covered his expenses on the property.
On the trial court level, the judge found that the property was not rented to a commercial entity, nor did Giacoman have anyone manage the property on his behalf. Giacoman had lived continuously at the property since he bought it. She concluded that this property qualified as a residential property and, hence, Giacoman was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the case.
On appeal, the Appellate Division cited to the well-established New Jersey law that residential property owners are not liable for sidewalk injuries. The Court also noted that “[c]onversely, commercial property owners have a duty to maintain sidewalks that abut their property and are liable for injuries suffered as a result of their negligent failure to do so.”
The Court agreed with the trial court’s ruling, finding that the predominant use of the property was as a place of residence. It was purchased always with the intent that the defendant would live at the property and rent the other two units and he has continued to live there since its purchase. No commercial entities have ever rented the property. Further, any profit realized from the rental was minimal. Without the rent from the other two units to apply to the mortgage and other carrying expenses, living in Hudson County would be unaffordable.
The Appellate Division found no basis to overturn the trial court’s summary judgment ruling. The plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish that the property was commercial in nature. Rather, the property was used for residential purposes, entitling the defendant to sidewalk immunity for plaintiff’s fall on the public sidewalk.
