The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION The motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing this case is granted. Background This action arises out of plaintiff’s purported trip and fall over a metal door saddle in her apartment building’s lobby. Plaintiff claims that on July 10, 2015, she was leaving for work when her left foot bumped into the metal door saddle and she fell. Plaintiff contends that the door saddle constitutes a defective condition because it was not flush with the tile floor. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that the metal door saddle does not constitute a defect. Defendant’s expert opined that “the saddle/threshold at the subject premises is free of defect in design, installation or maintenance, and does not pose a tripping hazard” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 28, 7). He found that “The lobby tiles are situated slightly under the saddle/threshold and the gap between the ceramic tile and the underside of the saddle/threshold varies between one-quarter of an inch (1/4″) and half an inch (1/2″) across the entire walking path. Similarly, the outer saddle edge, measured between flush and half an inch (1/2″) high above the sidewalk. The lobby door saddle was observed to be firmly attached and safe under pedestrian loading. The saddle was not loose and did not rock side to side or front to back. The saddle/threshold has none of the characteristics of a snare or trap” (id. 6). In opposition, plaintiff’s expert did not dispute the measurements offered by defendant’s expert (NYSCEF Doc. No. 36). Instead, he insisted that the “metal door saddle was raised above the height of the ceramic floor” and there “was a sharp lip and a tripping hazard” (id. 18). Plaintiff’s expert also concluded that the raised position of the door saddle was a “toe trap” and violated the New York City Building Code (id.
