A recent appellate court opinion has clarified responsibility for sidewalk maintenance after a woman was injured by tripping on a raised concrete lip adjacent to a commercial property, resulting in significant damages being awarded. The legal dispute centers on whether the commercial property owner or the local township was responsible for maintaining the area where the accident occurred, which impacts public safety and municipal liability standards.
The complaint was filed by Ellen English in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County (Docket No. L-0219-20), naming Lince Group, LLC as defendant along with the Township of Scotch Plains and several tenant businesses. The appeal was argued before Judges Sabatino and Bergman on December 15, 2025, with a decision issued March 6, 2026.
According to court documents, in June 2019 Ellen English fell while running along East Second Street when she caught her foot on an elevated section of concrete at the intersection with Tarquin’s Alley. She sustained a broken right wrist that required surgery and ongoing therapy. The area where she fell consisted of both concrete slabs and brick pavers abutting Lince Group’s commercial building at 1812 to 1826 East Second Street. Historical records showed that Tarquin’s Alley had been dedicated as a public right of way by the Township after being conveyed from a previous owner in 2000.
English alleged that Lince Group failed to maintain this portion of sidewalk, which had become hazardous due to displacement caused by tree roots and an uneven surface between slabs and driveway apron. The lawsuit cited Township Ordinance §15-2.8 requiring owners to keep sidewalks clear of obstructions or dangerous conditions. After initial filings, tenant-defendants were dismissed or defaulted prior to trial.
Lince Group moved for summary judgment twice—first in September 2021 and again in November 2023—arguing it did not have responsibility for maintaining the area where English fell because it was not directly in front of its building but rather within Tarquin’s Alley, which they claimed was under Township control. Both motions were denied by the trial court, which found factual disputes over who bore responsibility for maintenance.
During trial proceedings, testimony from witnesses including Township Director of Public Works Frank DiNizo established that while the Township maintained asphalt surfaces adjacent to municipal buildings and schools, private owners were required to maintain concrete or paver sidewalks fronting their properties per ordinance. DiNizo stated that although Tarquin’s Alley itself was maintained by the Township as a public way, repairs to encroaching concrete slabs remained the responsibility of adjoining owners—even those extending into Tarquin’s Alley.
Lince Group’s property manager Tille Yu testified she believed their duty only extended up to their property line but admitted inspecting areas beyond as a courtesy and acknowledged replacing brick pavers even outside their line after tree removal by the Township.
Plaintiff’s expert engineer James Kennedy opined that industry standards were exceeded by the height difference at issue and concluded Lince Group should have addressed it since their building abutted both East Second Street and Tarquin’s Alley—making it effectively a corner lot with two frontages under local zoning definitions.
After hearing evidence about English’s injuries—including permanent impairments confirmed by Dr. Joseph Barmakian—and conflicting medical opinions from defense expert Dr. Michael Bercik regarding severity and causation, the jury found both Lince Group (sixty percent) and Scotch Plains Township (thirty percent) liable for damages totaling $1,200,000 plus pre-judgment interest ($1,218,748.81). Ten percent comparative negligence was assigned to English herself.
Following reserved argument on directed verdicts post-trial, however, the trial court granted dismissal in favor of Scotch Plains Township based on insufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice under provisions of New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:4-2—a statute generally granting immunity unless specific criteria are met regarding dangerous conditions on public property.
On appeal from both sides—the defendant challenging its duty under Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street Inc., while plaintiff cross-appealed dismissal against Scotch Plains—the Appellate Division affirmed most rulings against Lince Group but reversed dismissal against Scotch Plains Township. The appellate panel found sufficient evidence existed for jurors reasonably to conclude that: (1) a dangerous condition existed; (2) it was foreseeable; (3) constructive notice could be inferred given years-long persistence; (4) township maintenance activities should have revealed it; (5) failure either to remediate or notify adjoining owners could be deemed palpably unreasonable; and (6) these failures proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries.
The appellate court ordered reinstatement of jury findings against Scotch Plains Township while affirming denial of new trial requests from Lince Group regarding liability or excessiveness of damages awarded.
Attorneys named in this matter include Robert T. Gunning (Morrison Mahoney LLP) representing appellant Lince Group; Patrick J. Flinn (Levinson Axelrod PA) representing respondent/cross-appellant Ellen English; Richard J. Guss (DiFrancesco Bateman Kunzman Davis Lehrer & Flaum PC) representing respondent Township of Scotch Plains; before Judges Sabatino and Bergman under case ID A-2344-23.
Source: A234423_English_v_Lince_Group_LLC_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf