- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Sadow v. Radio City Productions LLC
- Date
- June 4, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03517
Background
Plaintiff Jan K. Sadow alleged that she tripped and fell on a barricade placed on the sidewalk outside Radio City Music Hall. The barricades had been placed by NYPD officers as part of crowd control measures to manage pedestrian traffic near the venue. Plaintiff sued both the City of New York and Radio City Productions LLC, RCPI Landmark Properties, L.L.C., Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., and MSG Entertainment Holdings, LLC (collectively Radio City), asserting negligence claims.
The City moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing it had no special duty to plaintiff. Radio City separately moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not own or control the barricade that caused the accident. Supreme Court, New York County (Ariel D. Chesler, J.), granted both motions dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the complaint as to all defendants, without costs. With respect to the City, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a special duty. Plaintiff merely alleged the City was negligent in creating a dangerous condition by how its officers placed barricades, but her own testimony confirmed she had no contact with a police officer before she fell, demonstrating the City made no definite promise or assurance to her and she relied on no such assurance. The officers were engaged in a discretionary governmental function of traffic control, insulating the City from liability.
Even considering plaintiff’s unpreserved argument that the City affirmatively created the condition, the Court found it unavailing because officers’ decisions about where to configure barricades fell within the discretionary governmental function of controlling pedestrian traffic, citing Casale v. City of New York, 117 AD3d 414, 415 (1st Dept 2014).
As to Radio City, the Court held defendants met their burden showing they did not own the barricade. They also made a prima facie showing of no special use because they lacked the ability to exercise control over the barricade. The barricades placed by the NYPD on the abutting sidewalk were not part of the sidewalk for purposes of liability under Administrative Code Section 7-210.
Takeaways
This decision reinforces the high threshold a plaintiff must meet to establish municipal liability for injuries related to police crowd-control operations. Unless the City made a definite promise or undertook specific control of a known hazard, officers’ crowd management decisions are discretionary governmental functions shielded from tort liability. Additionally, abutting property owners bear no liability for barricades or devices placed by police on public sidewalks, as these do not constitute “sidewalk” conditions under the Administrative Code.
Why It Matters
For personal injury practitioners, this case is a clear illustration of the twin obstacles plaintiffs face in sidewalk-barricade cases: the special duty doctrine as applied to the City, and the ownership/control requirement as applied to adjacent property owners. The decision confirms that police crowd-control measures enjoy broad discretionary immunity and that businesses adjacent to police barricades cannot be held liable simply because the barricades facilitate their operations. Plaintiffs pursuing such claims must identify a specific undertaking or promise by the City directed at the individual plaintiff, not mere proximity to police activity.