X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

DECISION AND ORDER   Plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries and lost services due to plaintiff Bela Bako’s fall when descending the stairs in defendants’ home in Montauk, New York, which defendants rented to plaintiffs beginning July 2, 2010. In the evening of July 2, 2010, as Bako descended the stairs from the second floor to the first floor, he lost his balance and reached out with his left hand to grab the ledge of a short wall on his left side, but could not maintain a grip on the wall and fell down the stairs. The stairs were not equipped with any other handrail. Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, C.P.L.R. §3212(b), maintaining that the stairs were safe and free from defects and that, if there was any unsafe or defective condition affecting the stairs, defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of any such condition. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS To obtain summary judgment, defendants must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, through admissible evidence eliminating all material issues of fact. C.P.L.R. §3212(b); Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v. Brown, 27 N.Y.3d 1039, 1043 (2016); Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 N.Y.3d 40, 49 (2015); Voss v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 22 N.Y.3d 728, 734 (2014); Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499, 503 (2012). Only if defendants satisfy this standard does the burden shift to plaintiffs to rebut that prima facie showing by producing evidence, in admissible form, sufficient to require a trial of material factual issues. De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 742, 763 (2016); Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 N.Y.3d at 49; Morales v. D & A Food Serv., 10 N.Y.3d 911, 913 (2008); Hyman v. Queens County Bancorp, Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 743, 744 (2004). In evaluating the evidence for purposes of defendants’ motion, the court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d at 763; William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v. Rabizadeh, 22 N.Y.3d 470, 475 (2013); Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 37 (2004). If defendants fail to meet their initial burden, the court must deny them summary judgment despite any insufficiency in plaintiffs’ opposition. Voss v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 22 N.Y.3d at 734; Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503; Smalls v. AJI Indus., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d at 735; JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d at 384. Defendants owned and controlled the premises in which the stairs were located and thus owed a duty to plaintiffs to maintain the stairs in a reasonably safe condition before renting the premises to plaintiffs. Bucholz v. Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 1, 8 (2005); Caicedo v. Sanchez, 116 A.D.3d 553, 554 (1st Dep’t 2014); Paez v. 1610 St. Nicholas Ave. L.P., 103 A.D.3d 553, 554 (1st Dep’t 2013); Alexander v. New York City Transit, 34 A.D.3d 312, 313 (1st Dep’t 2006). Thus defendants may demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment by establishing the absence of an unsafe or defective condition on the stairs. Cataudella v. 17 John St. Assoc., LLC, 140 A.D.3d 508, 508 (1st Dep’t 2016); Acevedo v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 416, 417 (1st Dep’t 2014); Wright v. Frawley Plaza Houses, Inc., 107 A.D.3d 449, 449 (1st Dep’t 2013); Rivera v. Bilynn Realty Corp., 85 A.D.3d 518, 518 (1st Dep’t 2011). The 2008 New York Administrative Code, which was in effect on the date of Bela Bako’s injury, required defendants to comply with the 2007 Residential Code of New York State (RCNYS). 19 N.Y.C.R.R. §1220.1(a) (2008) (amended 2017). Section R311.5.6 of the 2007 RCNYS required stairways with four or more steps to be equipped with at least one handrail 34 to 38 inches above the steps and at least 1.5 inches from the adjacent wall. Circular handrail grips were to measure no more than two inches in diameter; non-circular handrail grips were to measure no more than 6.25 inches around their perimeter. RCNYS §R311.5.6. II. CONSTRUCTION OF THE STAIRS Defendants fail to establish that the stairs on their premises were equipped with the required handrail. Both Bela and Annika Bako testified at their depositions that the stairs where Bela Bako fell comprised more than four steps, Aff. of Rebecca S. Casas Ex. E, at 12, Ex. F, at 39, requiring defendants under the 2007 RCNYS to install a handrail on the stairs. RCNYS §R311.5.6. The handrail that defendants provided failed to comply with the 2007 RCNYS’s height, width, and clearance requirements. Defendant Kausar Zaman testified at his deposition that in July 2010 a short wall capped with wood, four feet high and five inches wide, that served as a handrail abutted the staircase between the first and second floors. Casas Aff. Ex. G, at 29-31. Zaman further testified that no other handrail was attached to any wall abutting the staircase. Id. at 30-31. Bela Bako consistently testified that there was no handrail attached to any wall, but there was a “little wall” on one side that was three to five feet high, id. Ex. E, at 14, and capped with wood that was six inches wide. Id. at 33. Thus, whether defendants rely on their witness’ testimony or Bela Bako’s testimony, no evidence establishes that the stairs on which Bela Bako fell were equipped with a handrail of the required height or width or with the required clearance from the wall. III. CAUSATION Finally, defendants fail to establish that the absence of the required handrail did not cause Bela Bako’s fall. Bela Bako testified that, as he began to fall down the stairs, he tried to grab the short wall to his left to arrest his fall, but could not grasp his hands around the top of the wall to grip it, and thus could not arrest his fall. Id. at 32-33. Annika Bako testified that, as her husband was falling, he attempted to grab the wall railing, but could not grip it because it was so wide, and therefore fell to the floor. Id. Ex. F, at 32-34, 38. This testimony raises a factual issue whether Bela Bako would have been able to grab a handrail of the required height, width, and clearance to prevent his fall, warranting denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Gold v. 35 E. Assoc. LLC, 136 A.D.3d 453, 453-54 (1st Dep’t 2016); McLeod v. NDI Webster/Clay Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 125 A.D.3d 506, 507 (1st Dep’t 2015); Sanchez v. Irun, 83 A.D.3d 611, 612 (1st Dep’t 2011); Alvia v. Mut. Redevelopment Houses, Inc., 56 A.D.3d 311, 312 (1st Dep’t 2008). IV. CONCLUSION Based defendants’ failure to establish that their stairs were safely constructed according to the applicable law or that the non-conforming construction did not contribute to Bela Bako’s injury, for the reasons explained above, the court denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. C.P.L.R. §3212(b). Dated: August 6, 2019

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 05, 2024
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
September 06, 2024
Johannesburg

The African Legal Awards recognise exceptional achievement within Africa s legal community during a period of rapid change.


Learn More
September 12, 2024
New York, NY

Consulting Magazine identifies the best firms to work for in the consulting profession.


Learn More

JOB DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Pulsar Title Insurance Company Inc., a commercial and residential title insurance underwriter based in the Bato...


Apply Now ›

RECRUITMENT BONUS Newly hired employees from this recruitment may be eligible to receive bonus payments up to $3,000!* FLEXIBLE SCHEDULE: ...


Apply Now ›

Morristown, NJ; New York, NY Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in multiple offices for a Counsel in our Litigation Department. The ...


Apply Now ›
06/27/2024
The American Lawyer

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/21/2024
Daily Business Review

Full Page Announcement


View Announcement ›