Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff sustained personal injuries when she fell on a sidewalk in front of a multiple dwelling owned by defendant. Supreme Court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. "It is well settled that an owner of land abutting on a public sidewalk does not, solely by reason of being an abutting owner, owe to the public a duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition” (Conlon v Village of Pleasantville, 146 AD2d 736, 737; see also, Du Pont v Town of Horseheads, 163 AD2d 643; Appio v City of Albany, 144 AD2d 869; Kiernan v Thompson, 137 AD2d 957, 958). There is an exception to the general rule where a statute, ordinance, or charter imposes liability upon adjoining landowners for injuries caused by their negligent maintenance of a public sidewalk. "In order to create such liability, however, the language of the statute, ordinance or charter must not only charge the abutting owner or occupier with a duty to maintain the public sidewalk, but it must also specifically state that a breach of
Nor can plaintiff rely upon the "special benefit” exception because, to impose liability under this exception, "it must be established that the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner or occupier” (Appio v City of Albany, supra, at 870; Kieman v Thompson, supra, at 958; Nickelsburg v City of New York, 263 App Div 625). No such proof was submitted here.
Section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law does not apply here because a "lot”, for purposes of the statute, does not include any part of an abutting public street or thoroughfare (Multiple Dwelling Law § 4 [31]), and a public sidewalk "must be viewed as part of the street” (Donnelly v Village of Perry, 88 AD2d 764, 765). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.